Timothy Ewest (Auth.) - Prosocial Leadership - Understanding The Development of Pro

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITHIN LEADERS AND

THEIR ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
PROSOCIAL
LEADERSHIP
TIMOTHY EWEST
Prosocial Leadership
Timothy Ewest
Prosocial Leadership
Understanding the Development
of Prosocial Behavior within Leaders and their
Organizational Settings
Timothy Ewest
Houston Baptist University
Houston, USA
ISBN 978-1-137-57741-2 ISBN 978-1-137-57808-2 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57808-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017946737
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any
other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,
computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher
nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher
remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Cover illustration: Sitade / Getty images
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Nature America Inc.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
On September 26th, 2014 thousands of protestors flooded the streets of Hong
Kong. Young, old, rich and poor, people from every station of life joined
together in protest. They collectivity demanded the right of free universal
suffrage, the freedom to determine their own future. The Umbrella Movement,
or Yellow Umbrella Movement, involved thousands of courageous individuals
who had full knowledge that there would be no change, no reward, and they
protested in fear of their own lives. This book is dedicated to prosocial leaders
like these individuals who act on behalf of others, to bring about a common
good, doing so with no certainty of reward and in fear of punishment. It is
hoped that this book can help bolster your ranks.
FOREWORD
A few years ago my family and I went on our yearly vacation to the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Northern Minnesota. As I
was accustomed to doing, I brought along a history book. On this trip I
brought along Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, written
by Mark Kurlansky (2011). The book was a historical biography about cod,
a species of fish found in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Gadus
morhua and Gadus macrocephalus). As depicted in the book, cod was a
motivating or sustaining force behind many Viking, European and Basque
expeditionary voyages. Kurlansky also argued that cod was the motivation
behind numerous economic, political, cultural and military decisions
throughout many eras of world history.
During a few rainy days, the book provided a pleasant distraction that
carried my mind far away from the work and list of responsibilities that
normally occupied my day-to-day rhythms. However, driving back home, I
realized that the book might metaphorically be a representation of my own
motivations in my research on ethics, prosocial behavior and leadership. For
years and years, I have listened to the experts and read everything I could
get my hands on concerning leadership, specifically ethical leadership. Yet,
each time I heard a leadership theory with accompanying ethical behavioral
expectations that described individual leaders, I would always think, “Some-
thing must be behind these leaders, motivating them as individuals, devel-
oping and directing their leadership behavior.” I would ask what was their
“why,” and “how” did they develop into leaders of character?
vii
viii FOREWORD
Yet, most of the answers I would hear in ethical leadership theories were
not concerned with the “why” (why do leaders behave ethically) or the
“how” (how do leaders develop ethically), but with the “what” (what is
ethical leadership and what is the effect of ethical leadership), and/or the
“when” (when is it needed?). In my own pursuit of answering the “why”
and “how” questions, I now believe one of the best ways to understand the
motivations and identify the actions associated with others-directed or
ethical behavior in leaders is through the employment of prosocial behav-
ioral values.
And, like the ire or suspicion raised in mentioning to someone that cod
was the motivator behind many important historical world events, so too ire
and suspicion may be raised for many leadership scholars in suggesting that
prosocial values are a good way to identify and develop others-directed or
ethical leaders. But this is exactly what this book supports and suggests.
Prosocial values are in fact a good way to develop and detect ethical leaders,
and, I assure you, they are the reason many ethical leaders are taking the
voyage of leadership to harvest a personal bounty of being others-directed
leaders.
On my drive home these thoughts carried me to another realization. For
most of my life I have been asking these two questions—“What is a person’s
motivation and how do individuals improve themselves?”—regardless of the
ire or suspicion these questions have raised. And these questions may even
be the motivation for many of my career and personal choices as a pastor,
consultant, professor, committed father, devoted husband, friend and
author. But they are most certainly the motivation behind writing this book.
I do hope that you, the reader, come with the same questions and
curiosity I have in researching and writing this book. But if you do come
without the same questions regarding the motivation or development of
individuals, specifically leaders, I trust this book will accent, shift or chal-
lenge your personal thinking and professional conversations, or possibly
embolden your own pursuit in research regarding the motivation and
development of ethical leaders.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As with my colleagues, I too have read countless books and had my mind
warmed by the labors and art of many great thinkers. This book endeavors
to support and add to the duty and passion demonstrated by their scholar-
ship. Yet, every time I begin to read books from one of these great thinkers,
I have become accustomed to read the acknowledgements section. I am
curious whom these great women and men of thought esteem, who holds
them up, who gives them pause, whom they are devoted to, and who gives
them personal meaning and inspiration. In my many, many years of reading,
I most often see the names of the author’s family members and spouse.
Here I follow that wisdom and thank my wife, Joanna, and my children,
Haliee, Carissa and Nathan, all of whom have given my life a deep sense of
purpose, and, for them, I would be willing to sacrifice myself, my whole self.
Yet, I am also a devoted follower of Christ, and, at the risk of appearing as
a foolish myth-believing plebian, I offer this work to him, he who suffered so
much on my behalf, giving his whole self.
ix
CONTENTS
1 The Need for Prosocial Leaders 1
2 The Challenges Within Ethical Leadership Theories 23
3 What Is Prosocial Behavior’s Connection to Leadership? 43
4 Perspectives on Leadership Development 63
5 The Prosocial Leadership Development Process 81
6 Stage One: Antecedent Awareness and Empathic Concern 97
7 Stage Two: Community and Group Commitment 117
8 Stage Three: Courage and Action 135
9 Stage Four: Reflection and Growth 149
10 Prosocial Leadership Development in Organizational Life 161
xi
xii CONTENTS
Appendix 1: Design and Methodology for

Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 185
Appendix 2: Design Methodology for Chap. 10 189
Appendix 3: Limitations of Research in this Project 195
References 197
Index 217
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1.1 Comprehensive responsibility model 8

Fig. 3.1 Schwartz’ human values 49
Fig. 3.2 Comparison of altruism to egoism 52
Fig. 6.1 Relationships of steps in stage one 100
Fig. 7.1 Relationships of steps in stage two 120
Fig. 8.1 Relationships of steps in stage three 138
Fig. 9.1 Relationships of steps in stage four 151
Fig. 10.1 Comprehensive responsibility model 163
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 The ten principles of the UN Global Compact 9

Table 1.2 Six principles of PRME 10
Table 2.1 Categories of ethical concepts 28
Table 2.2 Comparative levels of discussion concerning ethical leadership 36
Table 3.1 Rokeach human values 47
Table 3.2 Schwartz’ ten instrumental values 48
Table 3.3 Ethical leadership theories’ connection to prosocial values 56
Table 4.1 Methods of leadership development 67
Table 4.2 Leadership development processes’ prosocial elements 72
Table 4.3 Ethical decision-making models and proposed abilities 74
Table 5.1 Prosocial leadership development process 85
Table 5.2 Number identified who completed each stage 86
Table 5.3 Literature agreement 91
Table 6.1 Components of stage one 99
Table 6.2 Step one: self-awareness/antecedents 101
Table 6.3 Emotional responsiveness 104
Table 6.4 Empathic concern 106
Table 6.5 Intrapersonal goals 108
Table 6.6 Projected representative 109
Table 6.7 Integration 111
Table 7.1 Components of stage two 119
Table 7.2 Step five group community commitment 121
Table 7.3 Step six: diversity/challenge 123
Table 7.4 Interpersonal goals 126
Table 7.5 Altruism (empathy) 127
xv
xvi LIST OF TABLES
Table 8.1 Components of stage three 137

Table 8.2 Step nine: moral courage 139
Table 8.3 Step ten: lived experiences 142
Table 8.4 Step eleven: goal coalescence 143
Table 9.1 Components of stage four 151
Table 9.2 Step twelve: self-reflective 152
Table 9.3 Step thirteen: commitment to future goals 154
Table 9.4 Step fourteen: progressive nature of growth 156
Table 10.1 Number identified as completing each stage 164
Table 10.2 Prosocial leadership development process—five-stage model 165
Table 10.3 Prosocial leaders’ step adherence 166
Table 10.4 Stage one organizational leaders 167
Table 10.5 Stage two organizational leaders 168
Table 10.6 Stage three organizational leaders 169
Table 10.7 Components of stage five 170
Table 10.8 Step fifteen: envisioning 171
Table 10.9 Step sixteen: coaching 173
Table 10.10 Behavioral components of models of TL that pertain to
envisioning and coaching 175
Table A.1 Descriptive statistics of the sample used 186
Table A.2 Descriptive statistics of the sample used 190
CHAPTER 1
The Need for Prosocial Leaders
INTRODUCTION
Who will take responsibility for communities that are being challenged, and
even overwhelmed, by environmental, civil, social and economic problems
that have resulted in community and ecosystem failure (Palazzo and Scherer
2006)? Today the challenges within many communities have become even
more profound given the interconnectedness of local communities to global
communities. This interconnectedness of communities has created condi-
tions where negative social or environmental impacts are directly or indi-
rectly felt, or at minimum acknowledged by communities around the world,
and where the ability to regulate, control or mitigate these impacts many
times exists outside the community.
The interconnectedness of global communities, which has been shaped
by global market forces, is supported and expedited by technology, exten-
sive global supply chains, the omnipresence of communications and acces-
sible global transportation—all of which now unify and connect the world.
The result is that, when one market fails, workers suffer inhumane treatment
or there is a severe environmental impact whose negative effects may be felt
directly or indirectly all over the world. There are numerous examples
highlighting the interconnectedness of communities by global market
forces, such as the global financial crisis of 2008, which sent market shocks
around the world, or British Petroleum’s Deep Water Horizon oil spill of
2010, which spilled over 3.19 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico,
resulting in a global loss of confidence in markets and a loss of trust in
© The Author(s) 2018 1

T. Ewest, Prosocial Leadership, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57808-2_1
2 1 THE NEED FOR PROSOCIAL LEADERS
corporations. The multiplicity of examples illustrating the reality of the

systemic connection of communities to global market forces is so replete
that arguments to the contrary are baseless.
But not only does the interconnection of global market forces create
systemic impact but the present and increasing growth of global economies
has resulted in environmental and social impacts on an unprecedented and
ever-increasing scale. Environmental challenges alone are becoming insur-
mountable, even with collective efforts from global communities. While
many can hope that technology and innovation will help curb the use of
natural resources, innovation can come at a social cost. Innovation often
does not seek the common good equitably, favoring developed countries
and having negative impacts on people living in close and undeveloped
communities (Brown 2010; Ewest 2015; Naldi et al. 2007).
Moreover, Diamond (2005) suggests a sobering reality behind innova-
tions applied through technologies, insofar as they may actually be the cause
of existing problems, by asserting the following,
Most of all, advances in technology just increase our ability to do things,

which may be either for the better or for worse. All our current problems are
unintended negative consequences of our existing technology. The rapid
advances in technology during the 20th century have been creating difficult
new problems faster than they have been solving old problems, that’s why
we’re in the saturation we now find ourselves. (p. 32)
Yet, even if innovation applied to technology can resolve some of the

most egregious environmental issues, the Living Planet Report of 2014
suggests that innovation’s dividends may simply be too late, “Humanity’s
demand on the planet is more than 50 percent larger than what nature is
able to renew, jeopardizing the well-being of humans as well as populations
of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. Research would suggest
that ‘we are consuming our planet’s resources at an unsustainable rate’”
(Monfreda et al. 2004, p. 231).
Social and civil unrest appear to be growing as well, creating both local
and global problems. Consider the International Forum for Human Devel-
opment report which states, “In spite of the complexity and scope of the
subject of inequality, and in spite of the difficulties in measuring or simply
assessing its dimensions, the forum was able to state with a reasonable
degree of certainty that the overall level of inequality in the world had
risen since the beginning of the 1980s” (2006, para 3). More recent data
INTRODUCTION 3
proposes that many in the world are experiencing improved human rights,
while there is an increasing and disproportionate number of humans who
are at extreme risk—the world is becoming deeply divided between those
who are at risk, and those for whom there is no risk (Smith 2014). These
deep divisions within society have created multiple social problems, includ-
ing increased human trafficking and a global slave and sex trade (Barner
et al. 2014). Even global efforts to address this issue, such as the Millennium
Development Goals sponsored by the United Nations (UN), are still
emerging and regarded by others as ineffective (Gaiha 2003). While some
individuals may have hopes of bringing justice to these realities and closing
the gap for those who do not have, the present conditions appear to be fixed
in time.
Add to these realities the perspective of Anita Allen as found in her book
The New Ethics: A Tour of the 21st-Century Moral Landscape. Allen under-
stands that the current ethical landscape in America is challenged by ethical
failure, despite Americans having available multiple moral resources. The
fact, she continues, is that most people have an array of novel options to
design their daily living, but their insular complacency towards the nation
and communities creates natural opposition to these aspirations of justice
and citizenship on behalf of the common good (2004, p. xiii). The shared
belief in a public common good has acted as a foundation for personal and
community ethical behavior (Putnam 1995), but is now in jeopardy within
the United States and increasingly throughout the World. Thus, even as
solutions are available, the greater question may remain the same, “Who will
take individual responsibility and lead global community change?”
To be sure, prosocial leaders can take responsibility to lead others and
direct change in their communities, whether local or global. And, while
prosocial behaviors can be found as a component of multiple leadership
theories, specific attention to the motivations, development and identifica-
tion of prosocial leaders has largely been unexplored. This book endeavors
to explore leadership behaviors, corresponding motivations and the devel-
opmental process of leadership that contain empathy and altruism, the two
qualities identifying prosocial leadership (Batson 2010). Prosocial leaders
are motivated by and respond to the interpersonal value of empathy, and,
without regard to punishment or reward, act to bring about the welfare of
followers and those they are committed to serve. Yet, prosocial leadership
theory and the corresponding prosocial leadership development process
should not be understood as a challenge or correction to other leadership
theories, specifically ethical leadership theories; instead it is presented as an
alternative means to distinguish, identify and note the development of
authentic others-directed leaders. More importantly, this book goes beyond

the consideration of connecting ethical leadership and prosocial behaviors
that act as motivators to leadership behavior, for it also describes the
antecedents that lead to the formation of prosocial leadership within indi-
vidual leaders and describes a prosocial leadership development model.
The book is a result of quantitative and qualitative research conducted
over a nine-year period on two groups of individuals in the early stages of
pursuing their personal leadership development (nascent leaders). This
book also contains research on a third group of mature others-directed
prosocial leaders who were active as leaders in social enterprises conducted
over a three-year period. The first research project was on a group of nascent
leaders, students (n ¼ 163) in a leadership development program, who
participated in a quantitative analysis to determine if an established leader-
ship theory’s behaviors, termed transformational leadership (TL), had a
theoretical correlation with prosocial values. This research was published
in 2015 (Ewest). This book contains a follow-up exploratory qualitative
study using grounded theory methodology with a second group of nascent
leaders, students (N ¼ 450/n ¼ 153). This book also contains a second
study on a group third of practitioners (N ¼ 27/n ¼ 12) used to test if the
prosocial leadership model presented in this book applies to existing leaders
within the context of the organization. The methods and findings of both of
these research projects will be presented, while referencing numerous lead-
ership research studies.
This book also contributes to existing research considering prosocial
behaviors’ impacts on followers (Lord and Brown 2004), prosocial leader-
ship and follower development (Day et al. 2008) and altruism as an essential
component of leadership (Fry 2003). The hope is that the research in this
book supports or, if necessary, redirects the evolving ethical leadership
conversations towards considering both intrinsic and human qualities that
pertain to others-directed behavior, specifically empathy and altruism as
defined by prosocial behavioral psychology. Finally, this book endeavors
to redirect or, at minimum, broaden the conversation away from static
leadership models that ignore antecedents, development processes and the
presumption that individuals can be leaders through simple adherence to
leadership principles as demonstrated by their behaviors, towards an under-
standing of leadership as an emerging process (Algera and Lips-Wiersma
2012).
INTRODUCTION 5
The world needs to understand how to develop leaders whose allegiance

is to a world overcome with significant social and environmental needs, and
who offer their allegiance as global citizens.
Specific to This Book
• The first section of this book, containing Chaps. 2, 3 and 4, sets the
context and establishes the theoretical anchor for prosocial leadership
theory and the prosocial leader developmental process, by considering
the challenges with ethical leadership theories, how prosocial behav-
ioral values and leadership theories are connected and, finally, by
surveying the present status of leadership development methods and
processes. This section of the book also intends to show how existing
leadership theories are positioned within classical philosophical ethical
theory, and then proposes that prosocial theory offers an alternative
ethical theoretical position.
• The second section of this book, containing Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9,
presents the prosocial leadership development process. Chapter 5 pro-
vides a general outline of the prosocial leadership development pro-
cess, and Chaps. 6, 7, 8 and 9, depict each stage and the specific steps
in each stage as both the stages and steps emerged in the prosocial
leadership development process.
• The final section of the book, Chap. 10, considers how the prosocial
leadership development model applies to existing leaders within the
context of the organization.
This first chapter sets the context for this book and the development of
prosocial leadership theory and the prosocial leadership development pro-
cess by highlighting the need for individuals to become leaders who move
beyond citizenship and act as stewards to take responsibility for the world’s
environmental and social issues. This chapter then advances a stewardship
model theoretically constructed by Hernandez (2008) and supported by
numerous corporate social responsibility initiatives, all of which share the
importance of leadership that unfolds into organizational leadership. The
chapter resolves by arguing for the importance of raising up internally
motivated, and personally devoted, prosocial leaders as the initial and
catalytic element to foster global stewardship.
NEED FOR GLOBAL CITIZENS?

One means that has been proposed to address the world’s growing envi-
ronmental and social problems is to re-envision and broaden the under-
standing of what it means to be a citizen. The proposition begins with the
understanding that allegiance to a community causes awareness of a
community’s interdependence, and awareness of interconnectedness
becomes the epitome of citizenship. But in today’s increasingly globalized
world, the definition of citizen must be extended beyond local community
and national boundaries. Recognizing these new realities, Barber (2002)
called for a redefinition of citizen to “The person who acknowledges and
recognizes his or her interdependence in a neighborhood, a town, a state, in
a nation, and today, in the world” (p. 27). Thus, global citizens acknowl-
edge or recognize the existing interdependence within the global commu-
nity and offer their allegiance to this global community.
FROM GLOBAL CITIZENS TO STEWARDS

But, if citizenship is defined simply as a person who “acknowledges and
recognizes interdependence to a broader global community” (Barber 2007,
p. 27), awareness of interdependence does not necessitate that the person
will also take responsibility, nor does it suggest that one should move
beyond personal or individual responsibility and towards organizational
and ultimately community and global responsibility. For this reason the
definition of citizenship for some has moved to include social responsibility
(Elliott et al. 2016). Today’s leaders must have more than allegiance; they
must endeavor to take responsibility to protect and nurture the global
community, and they must also act as leaders who mobilize others to take
responsibility, influencing others in organizations to be effective in getting
results.
The concept stewardship may be better suited to describe a person who is
aware of his or her global independence and who takes responsibility
individually and organizationally. The term stewardship was popularized
in business literature by Block (1993) in his book of the same title. Block
defined stewardship as the action of selflessly taking responsibility for oneself
as well as the governance of institutions to ensure the welfare of others.
Academic research by Hernandez (2008) also uses the term with a similar
definition:
FROM GLOBAL CITIZENS TO STEWARDS 7
Stewardship is defined here as the attitudes and behaviors that place the long-
term best interests of a group ahead of personal goals that serve an individual’s
self-interests. It exists to the extent that organizational actors take responsi-
bility for the effects of organizational action on stakeholder welfare. The issue
of balance is a key part of taking personal responsibility. (p. 122)
The concept of stewardship incorporates both the taking of personal

responsibility in relationships (leadership) and also organizational responsi-
bility (leading others), that being the organization and its relationship to the
global community (corporate social responsibility and organizational lead-
ership). Since stewardship definitionally considers looking out for both the
long-term best interests of the group and also individual interconnected-
ness, placing the interests of others above personal interests, there are
resonances with shareholder theory. Edward Freeman (2010), arguably
one of the first to codify this field, defines stakeholder theory in the follow-
ing way, “The basic idea is that businesses, and the executives who manage
them, actually do and should create value for customers, suppliers,
employees, communities, and financiers (or shareholders)” (p. 5).
The catalyst in developing stewards is raising up leaders who have as core
convictions the prosocial value of empathy, which results in altruistic action.
“Therefore, generally speaking, stewardship as a concept is the result of
others-directed leadership, or prosocial leadership, and corporate governance
that involves responsibility to stakeholders as well as for the organizations’
social and environmental impacts” (Ewest 2017, p. 3). Specifically, steward-
ship involves responsibility and deepening relationships with oneself in order
to serve others (personal leadership), fellow employees (leading others) and
broader stakeholders and organizational impacts (organizational leadership),
and when responsibility is taken for all three, an organization and its leaders
are considered good global stewards. See Fig. 1.1 (Ewest 2015).
And, while this book focuses primarily on personal leadership, and
secondarily on organizational leadership, numerous leadership, educational
and international initiatives consider these two vital elements as conjoined,
tacitly suggesting that individual and organizational responsibility (global
stewardship) are both necessary means to address the world’s social and
environmental issues.
Individual Responsibility
Organizational Responsibility
Prosocial leadership seeks its
own goals while serving the Stewardship
goals of others, but the leader Corporate social responsibility
will sacrifice their own goals to is leadership that seeks the best
ensure others will achieve their for the financial goals of Being responsible for leading
goals. organizations, without themselves, fellow employees,
Relationships with self and compromising the goals of and the organization to
employees. stakeholders concerns for financial, social, environmental
society and the environment. sustainability, even at a cost.
Relationships extend to Making the leaders and the
shareholder outside the organization good global
company. stewards
Fig. 1.1 Comprehensive responsibility model (Ewest, © Greenleaf Publishing)
INITIATIVES TO RAISE UP GLOBAL STEWARDS

In 2000 the UN recognized and responded to the need for globally respon-
sible leaders by initiating a comprehensive program for responsible organi-
zational leadership called the United Nations Global Compact (www.
unglobalcompact.org). The United Nations Global Impact Initiative
brought together UN agencies with business leaders, workers and govern-
ments to determine ways to improve, advance and develop five areas of
human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption by adhering to
ten universal principles. The Global Compact includes over 4100 compa-
nies that are representative of 100 countries, comprising the largest volun-
tary global stewardship group in the world. The participating organizations
agree to adhere to five commitments detailed in Table 1.1. For these
principles to be actualized and effective, leaders are required to take respon-
sibility for the implementation of the principles within their organizations.
A second initiative, The Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative,
began in 2004 from a group of 35 individuals representing 21 different
companies or business schools, who recognized the importance of global
leadership to address the world’s mounting problems. This initiative is also
comprised of formal partnerships with 70 organizations consisting of com-
panies, learning institutions and global organizations all committed to
INITIATIVES TO RAISE UP GLOBAL STEWARDS 9
Table 1.1 The ten principles of the UN Global Compact
Human rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally
proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses
Labor
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recogni-
tion of the right to collective bargaining;
Principle 4: The elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor;
Principle 5: The effective abolition of child labor; and
Principle 6: The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation
Environment
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental chal-
lenges;
Principle 8: Undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
Principle 9: Encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly
technologies
Anti-corruption
Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion
and bribery
developing globally responsible leaders. The Globally Responsible Leader-

ship Initiative asks those who desire to be globally responsible leaders to
focus their positive leadership impacts on three areas: individual, organiza-
tional and systemic. The initiative encourages individual members to
develop new skills and knowledge to address the world’s environmental
and social issues, and at the organizational level those who participate are
encouraged to be exemplars for other organizations that want to address
global issues (http://www.grli.org/about/).
Conscious Capitalism, founded in 2005, represents a third initiative to
foster global stewards, which again focuses on responsible leadership at both
the individual and organizational levels. The four principles of conscious
capitalism include: (1) Higher purpose, which involves finding purpose
beyond profit; (2) conscious leadership, which focuses on the other and
tries to foster transformation in others; (3) stakeholder orientation, which
sees the interconnectedness of businesses and their environment; and
(4) conscious culture, which builds trust and care within the company,
and between the company and its stakeholders (Mackey and Sisodia
2014). These principles also notably include developing individual respon-
sibility through others-directed leadership development and understanding
Table 1.2 Six principles of PRME
Principle 1 | Purpose: We will develop the capabilities of students to be future generators of

sustainable value for business and society at large and to work for an inclusive and sustainable
global economy
Principle 2 | Values: We will incorporate into our academic activities and curricula the values
of global social responsibility as portrayed in international initiatives such as the United
Nations Global Compact
Principle 3 | Method: We will create educational frameworks, materials, processes and
environments that enable effective learning experiences for responsible leadership
Principle 4 | Research: We will engage in conceptual and empirical research that advances our
understanding about the role, dynamics, and impact of corporations in the creation of
sustainable social, environmental and economic value
Principle 5 | Partnership: We will interact with managers of business corporations to extend
our knowledge of their challenges in meeting social and environmental responsibilities and to
explore jointly effective approaches to meeting these challenges
Principle 6 | Dialogue: We will facilitate and support dialog and debate among educators,
students, business, government, consumers, media, civil society organizations and other
interested groups and stakeholders on critical issues related to global social responsibility and
sustainability
the importance of the organization and its final connection to communities,

resonating with the definition of stewardship, even though it does not use
the term.
A final example comes from an initiative launched in 2007 by an inter-
national task force consisting of 60 deans, university presidents and other
officials of leading business schools, who sought to align business educators
with the UN Initiatives, including the Global Compact, titled Principles of
Responsible Management Education (PRME). With over 500 leading busi-
ness schools participating in more than 80 countries that have agreed to
practice the six principles, PRME seeks to inspire, champion and follow six
principles committed to globally responsible management. See Table 1.2.
The growing awareness and interest in identifying and developing leaders
who take responsibility for global environmental and societal issues is diffi-
cult to ignore. Academic scholarship also echoes awareness of the need to
equip existing leaders to address global social and environmental issues
(Astin and Antonio 2004; Deardorff et al. 2005; DeSoto 2000; Grant
2012; Macfarlane 2005). One such global example is represented by the
most extensive leadership research initiative to date, The Global Leadership
& Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project. By measuring
for what the study identifies as Humane-Oriented Leadership, which is
THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP 11
leadership that is supportive and considerate, demonstrating compassion

and generosity (House et al. 2004), this project is also an attestation to the
presence and importance of others-directed global leadership. Yet, these
initiatives are concerned with a prescriptive analysis of normative leadership
behavior, not with leadership development.
Numerous scholars suggest that there is a need to look beyond existing
leadership theories and redirect attention to leadership development as a
means to raise up global leaders, suggesting that leadership training and
development is central to addressing global issues (Astin and Antonio 2004;
Gibson and Pason 2003; Malone 1994; Wheeler and Edlebeck 2006). This
discussion is addressed in Chap. 4. Nevertheless, these various initiatives
should appropriately lead to the conclusion that responsible individual
leadership should have domesticity with and be conjoined to responsible
organizational governance.
THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP

The central importance of leadership has been demonstrated as vital to
successful environmental sustainability efforts within organizations. A
2007 survey conducted by the American Management Association endeav-
ored to understand what created successful sustainability efforts within
organizations. One of the significant findings of this research was that
those organizations that successfully practiced sustainability had leaders
who visibly supported their organizations’ sustainability practices and did
so because of deeply embedded personal core values of caring for others and
the planet (Russell and Lipsky 2008). And what is of note is that today the
trend in industry is for top leadership to move towards sustainability prac-
tices and not away from those personal commitments (Bonini and Bové
2014). The indication from the research is that for global stewardship to
take place, it requires a personal commitment by organizational leaders
(Ferdig 2007; Lawrence and Beamish 2012). While this book takes a
primary focus on others-directed leadership, the final chapter of the book
does apply grounded theory methodology to consider how prosocial lead-
ership is expressed at both the individual and organizational levels, using the
prosocial leadership development model for guidance, as presented in sum-
mation in Chap. 5 and fully delineated in Chaps. 6, 7, 8 and 9. As alluded to
earlier, but here specifically defined,
Prosocial Leaders are motivated by and respond to empathy, and without

regard to punishment, or reward, act to bring about the welfare of followers
and those they are committed to serve.
The prosocial leader may be an exemplar within other existing and

established leadership theories such as servant leadership (SL), TL, ethical
leadership (EL), authentic leadership (AL) or spiritual leadership (Ewest
2017), since each of these leadership theories contains the importance of
others-directed leader behavior, which is discussed in more detail in
Chap. 3. Yet, while these established leadership theories prescribe and
identify behaviors or traits, some of which may be prosocial, they also
contain behaviors or traits that are not specific to prosocial behavior (e.g.,
challenging processes). Therefore, if the world is truly in need of prosocial
leaders or others-directed leaders to take responsibility for the world’s
problems, then being able to specifically identify prosocial behaviors in
leaders and correspondingly trace how leaders develop into prosocial leaders
who will act with prosocial motivation becomes vital. If the global environ-
mental and social crisis is to be addressed, then focusing on leadership
theories that emphasize or isolate prosocial leadership behaviors and devel-
opment is paramount. Anecdotally, the importance and existence of
prosocial leaders’ impacts upon society are not hard to find.
Notable leaders include Nobel Laureate Mahmud Yunas, whose innova-
tive and compassionate leadership to the marginalized (woman in particu-
lar) brought millions out of poverty through microfinance; Martin Luther
King, Jr., whose self-sacrificing leadership ushered in a new era for civil
rights; Captain Ernest Shackleton, the Antarctic explorer whose ship was
crushed by sea ice and who, stranded with his men, faced the planet’s most
brutal conditions but refused to let any of his crew perish; Paul
Rusesabagina, who refused to take advantage of his privilege during the
ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and sheltered hundreds from genocide; and the
unnamed single mother who sacrifices her own personal interests to care for
her children’s basic daily needs. These leaders are motivated internally to
serve others, being personally devoted to bringing positive change to their
families, local and global communities.
The tasks for researchers are to better identify what specifically prosocial
leadership is and, more importantly, to determine how individuals develop
as prosocial leaders, which is taking the first important step in raising up
leaders for the global community. The starting place for understanding
prosocial leaders is to recognize the individual’s internal motivational state.
ORIGINS OF PROSOCIAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH 13
ORIGINS OF PROSOCIAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

The origins of prosocial leadership research contained in this book began
with a desire to resolve personal angst concerning the reality of what I
regard as “utility leadership.” Utility leadership occurs when leaders do
the right ethical behavior, that is, they follow the right rules to get results
or benefits that are considered effective, but doing the right thing is external
to the leader, and the ultimate benefit to others is not an internal motivating
force. Instead, they are externally motivated to do the right thing and, like
pseudo-transformational leaders, are divorced from personal concern for
others and largely vacant of empathy or compassion (Christie et al. 2011).
But, unlike pseudo-transformational leaders, these leaders can be respectful
of others, encourage independent thought and be of service to their fol-
lowers, but they do so with the end goal of being ethical and so enhancing
of their own egos, wanting to be labeled “good leaders.” Their self-interest
and personal power (which is discussed more in Chap. 2) are due to the
simple belief that right behavior alone is an end in itself, that no personal
transformation or personal commitment is needed; they just need to follow
the rules. Utility leaders are motivated by a self-serving need to feel good
about themselves and be labeled as good leaders, and by a belief that they
are acting ethically and doing the right thing. They see those they care for as
a means to exemplify their self-perceived ethical actions. So, while pseudo-
transformational leaders knowingly deceive followers to attain to their own
personal self-serving goals, so do utility leaders, but they believe they are
acting ethically.
Yet, there is a note of caution in regarding self-serving actions as
unethical simply because an individual’s actions are self-serving. All humans
have a proclivity, a deep need, to self-actualize, and correspondingly when
they identify themselves as leaders (or in any other role), they desire to reach
their full potential or flourish (Rogers 1959). Rogers describes humans’
self-actualizing tendency, both generally and specifically, as the “inherent
tendency of all organisms to develop their capacities in ways which serve to
maintain or enhance themselves as organisms. Humans seek to behave in
those ways which maintain and enhance themselves” (1959, p. 196). But
what is particularly crucial to understand is that individuals do not develop
themselves and correspondingly how they identify themselves in isolation
from others. In fact, individuals who perceive themselves as becoming more
genuine, or living into their true identity, have done so based on interac-
tions and reflections with other humans or, for some individuals, God.
Therefore, humans’ self-actualizing tendency is dependent on relation-

ships with others. Kierkegaard (2013) suggests that humans have the need
for self-actualization, as does Rogers (1959), wherein self-actualization,
becoming the true self, is fostered by self-awareness, which develops within
relationships with others and thus allows the finite person to develop and
grow into congruency with his or her infinite soul. Thus, self-interest that
seeks to care for and enhance oneself in reference to and dependence on
others (and, for some, God) is part of the human development growth and
actualization paradox.
Yet, while all humans endeavor to flourish, utility and pseudo-
transformational leaders do so by using individuals (followers) to enhance
themselves, but prosocial leaders are focused on transcending their own
personal needs and on helping the other; they disregard self-based needs to
serve the other and, in their service to the other, enhance themselves, too
(see Chaps. 2 and 3). On a personal level, leaders who take responsibility for
others, who serve others with their actions, are simultaneously helping
themselves become more humane. Although, as we will discuss in
Chap. 3, their personal growth is not their objective, as if it were a reward,
it is the by-product of their genuine others-directed choices. These leaders
choose a different approach or way to exist than other leaders. These others-
directed leaders understand that their personal development or enhance-
ment is interdependent on their relationship with and in service to others.
However, most leadership theories that encourage ethical behavior take the
perspective of normative ethical action or the virtue category, which is
discussed more in Chap. 2.
Yet, most leadership theories that include ethics as a component demand
normative ethical behavior, which is action-oriented, having ethical behav-
iors as the leader’s ultimate goals (utility leadership), and depend heavily on
the use of reason as the primary means to determine what is morally
required. The leader’s ethical actions, then, give little consideration to
interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions as motivators; prioritizing rea-
son creates a focus on intrapersonal considerations. This presents a signifi-
cant problem in that adherence to a set of rules is based on the individual’s
rational understanding of those rules, but does not necessitate the individual
examination of the individual’s motivation and correspondingly does not
necessitate personal devotion, since the focus is on external adherence, not
on interpersonal development.
Moreover, there is a growing body of research that shows a weak or
moderate association between moral reasoning and moral action or behavior
THE FORESIGHT OF KIERKEGAARD 15
(Blasi 1983; Bergman 2004; Hoffman 2000; Walker 2004). Multiple moti-
vations for ethical behavior include emotions (Eisenberg 1986; Hoffman
2000), intuitions (Haidt 2001) and religion (Weaver and Agle 2002; Vitell
2009). Motivation is a key determinant to differentiate whether ethical
behavior is authentically directed towards the other, since motivators repre-
sent personal goals or end-states (Schwartz 1994), or alternatively if the
leader’s action is simply a means to enhance the self and his or her agenda,
thus increasing personal power or self-esteem.
THE FORESIGHT OF KIERKEGAARD

Kierkegaard’s (2013) writings in Fear and Trembling capture these subtle
distinctions, arguing that a simple ethical life, which is one where a person
adheres to normative ethical principles of action as an ultimate goal, is not
the highest ethical purpose or best approach or mode of existence for
humans. Humanity’s moral or most genuine existence is best defined as
being designed to commit to morality for the person’s own sake. The
highest or most authentic mode of existence for humans, Kierkegaard
believes, is one “which has its teleology [purpose] within itself” (Kierke-
gaard, p. 23). This highest ethical purpose or mode of existence Kierkegaard
refers to as the beautiful, religious or noble agent (person) wherein individ-
uals understand that they have an internal devotional purpose to do the
right thing, and the end goal of ethical or others-directed action is given
meaning within themselves. This is not to suggest that Kierkegaard believed
individuals determine their own good, but rather the moral law is some-
thing that is a deeply internalized part of their design and is understood as an
intrapersonal and interpersonal component of self. For Kierkegaard, the
truth or moral good is more than a static ideal or normative rule, but instead
it is connected to the subject, a person, that emerges in relationships with
others; thus the individuals who treat others ethically as an expression of
their inner selves also begin to embrace a better version of themselves.
Storsletten and Jakobsen (2015) expand the above description of
Kierkegaard’s (2013) philosophy, specifically delineating Kierkegaard’s
proposed three approaches humans take to living, or modes of human
existence, found in Fear and Trembling, as a means to capture how ethical
leadership theory can include the commitment of personal values or per-
sonal devotion. Kierkegaard understands human existence within one of
three modes: aesthetic, ethical and religious or beautiful.
For Kierkegaard, the mode of existence one chooses corresponds to

whether one lives within one’s true purpose, thus having an authentic or
fully human existence. The person who chooses aesthetic existence is not in
control of his or her life, because such persons live in the moment and make
decisions based on what appeals to them, what their appetites are at the
present moment. They can do this because they avoid commitments and
thus can be governed by impulse. People who choose the ethical life decide
to take their place in social institutions and accept their obligations,
accepting the determination of moral standards and obligations, and using
reason to determine if there are ethical values right for themselves and
others. This mode of existence, the ethical life, is best representative of
most ethical leadership theories, and also representative of what I refer to
earlier in this chapter as utility leadership. The third mode, the religious
mode, may not be easily differentiated at times from the ethical since the
actions may look the same, but the person who chooses the religious mode
is motivated by something inside that is spiritual, a relationship to the
absolute, God, or, for some, a commitment to their higher self.
Thus, for those who choose the religious or beautiful mode of existence,
ethical truth is always found, given personal meaning and understood best
in a subject-to-subject relationship, and not in adherence to ethical princi-
ples of action. The indication from Kierkegaard is that the religious or
beautiful, which Storsletten and Jakobsen (2015) suggest as important, is
what leadership development should also have as the highest orientation.
Leadership studies and development theories should be focused on identi-
fying and explaining the leader’s internal and personal motivation, which
will be discussed in Chap. 4.
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN LEADERS

Prosocial behavioral research considers what are internal causes and personal
motivation for others-directed behavior in humans, including socialization,
developmental conditions, cultural environments, evolutionary biology,
personality, motivations, intrinsic values and goals. For prosocial behavioral
researchers, human values are internal motivators regulating and directing
the actions of the individual as internal regulatory goals and also acting to
form the individual’s personal identity. The individual’s personal identity
represents an ultimate goal, and intrinsic personal values become central to
regulating and directing behavior to arrive at personal identity. A person’s
identity can either be self-transcending or self-enhancing; this is explored in
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN LEADERS 17
Chap. 3 (Latham and Locke 1991; Schwartz 1994; Zimmerman and

Kitsantas 1997). Thus, if prosocial behavioral research—specifically research
pertaining to motivations, intrinsic values and goals—can be allied with
leadership studies, it could provide a means to determine genuine others-
directed leadership.
Most existing ethical leadership theories simply do not have the theoret-
ical means to capture authentic others-directed leadership behavior, since
they ignore personal motivations and correspondingly the antecedents of
ethical behavior. Again, leadership thought is typically aimed at developing
good practices, or right thinking, paying little attention to antecedents and
almost ignoring altogether the understanding of leadership development as
a process (Hannah et al. 2011). Few, if any, leadership theories have
addressed “antecedents within leadership that give rise to ethical behavior”
(p. 555). If prosocial leadership concerns itself with antecedents, it also
becomes indicative of developmental behavior.
Moreover, it has often been touted that one notable commonality
among leadership theories is that they inculcate the importance of ethical
behavior (Aronson 2001; Ciulla 2001, 2003; Johnson 2011; Kanungo
2001; Trevino et al. 2003); yet, for prosocial behavioral researchers, ethical
behavior is anchored within a specific set of human values and ultimately
argued to be the motivational anchor behind all behaviors (Rokeach 1973;
Schwartz 1994). Prosocial leadership then is identified by the human values
of empathy and altruism. These values are recognized as motivators and
goals to any prosocial action (Beirhoff et al. 1991; Hastings et al. 2000;
Omoto and Snyder 1995; Penner and Finkelstein 1998).
Within this theoretical framing, prosocial leadership can be found within
behaviors of numerous leadership theories, since a leader acts as a prosocial
leader when he or she acts for the good of others, without regard to personal
reward or punishment and even if it must be at personal cost. One of the first
leadership scholars, Burns (1978) conceptualized leadership as being cen-
tered on, or directed to, public interest. Since the time of Burns, numerous
scholars have included others-directed behavior as an aspect of leadership
theory (Avolio and Locke 2002; Fry 2013; Grant 2007, 2012; Greenleaf
2002; Hannah et al. 2011; Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010; Sosik et al. 2009).
Prosocial behavioral research and its theoretical connection to leadership
theory is discussed more in Chap. 3.
SUMMARY
For some, it may not matter what the motivation is behind the leader’s
actions, as long as he or she addresses human need(s). And the culture of
leadership development scholarship and training supports this tone and
ethos. For many, what will fix the problem is getting large numbers of
people doing the right thing, motivation be damned. But, if we want to
know when to expect help for a world desperately in need of responsible
leadership, what type of people we can expect will be responsible for others-
directed help and, most importantly, how to foster and develop these
prosocial leaders, then the rest of the book is a conversation to join.
Prosocial leaders move beyond utility leaders, who act in ways that simply
follow rational ethical norms or rules, and avoid pseudo-transformational
leadership because their action is motivated by and begins with the internal
personal values of empathy, which culminates in altruistic acts. Prosocial
leaders have a personal and subjective relationship with the truth, to which
they are personally devoted.
This book intends to contribute to the expanding body of literature
considering leaders’ prosocial behavioral impacts on followers (De Cremer
et al. 2009; Ewest 2015; Grant 2012; Hopkins 2000; Nakamura and
Watanabe-Muraoka 2006; Ridenour 2007). But, more importantly, it
offers an alternative and complementary way to identify and understand
the development of prosocial behaviors within leaders. The hope is that the
research in the book will broaden and redirect the conversation regarding
ethical leadership to include intrinsic motivation and personal moral devel-
opment. Ultimately, if this research can join in supporting theories, initia-
tives and movements that hold as primary leaders take responsibility to build
a better world through service to local and global communities, the book
will have served its purpose.
REFERENCES
Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership:
Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can
be authentic. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 118–131.
Allen, A. L. (2004). The new ethics: A guided tour of the twenty-first century moral
landscape. New York: Miramax.
Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Cana-
dian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 244.
REFERENCES 19
Astin, H. S., & Antonio, A. L. (2004). The impact of college on character develop-
ment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(122), 55–64.
Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. A. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader
motivation: Altruism vs. egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 169–191.
Barber, N. (2002). Citizenship, nationalism and the European Union. European
Law Review, 27(1/6), 241–259.
Barber, T. (2007). Young people and civic participation: A conceptual review. Youth
and Policy, 96(96), 19–40.
Barner, J. R., Okech, D., & Camp, M. A. (2014). Socio-economic inequality,
human trafficking, and the global slave trade. Societies, 4(2), 148–160.
Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In Prosocial motives,
emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 15–34). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Beirhoff, H. W., Klien, R., & Kramp, P. (1991). Evidence for the altruistic person-
ality from data on accident research. Journal of Personality, 59, 263–280.
Bergman, R. (2004). Identity as motivation: Toward a theory of moral self. In D. K.
Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self and identity (pp. 21–46).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective.
Developmental Review, 3, 178–210.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Bonini, S., & Bové, A. T. (2014). Sustainability’s strategic worth. McKinsey Global
Survey results. New York: McKinsey & Company.
Brown, L. (2010). Balancing risk and innovation to improve social work practice.
British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1211–1228.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Christie, A., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2011). Pseudo-transformational leadership:
Model specification and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12),
2943–2984.
Ciulla, J. B. (2001). Carving leaders from the warped wood of humanity. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l'Administration, 18(4), 313–319.
Ciulla, J. B. (2003). The ethics of leadership. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Day, D., Harrison, M., & Halpin, S. (2008). An integrative approach to leader
development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. London:
Routledge.
De Cremer, D., Van Dijke, M., Mayer, D., Schouten, B., & Bardes, M. (2009).
When does self-sacrificial leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on
followers’ prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 887–899.
Deardorff, M., Kolnick, J., Mvusi, T., & McLemore, L. (2005). The Fannie Lou
Hamer national institute on citizenship and democracy: Engaging a curriculum
and pedagogy. History Teacher, 38(4), 441–456.
DeSoto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and
fails everywhere else. New York: Perseus Books.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. York: Penguin
books.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, congnition, and behavior. Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Elliott, D., Silverman, M., & Bowman, W. (Eds.). (2016). Artistic citizenship: Artistry,
social responsibility, and ethical praxis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ewest, T. (2015). The Provocation. Does prosocial behavior, the concern for the
welfare of the other, limit a leader’s ability to innovate? Journal of Leadership
Studies, 9(3), 53–54.
Ewest, T. (2017). Leadership and moral behavior. In Leadership today (pp. 43–57).
New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
Ferdig, M. A. (2007). Sustainability leadership: Co-creating a sustainable future.
Journal of Change Management, 7(1), 25–35.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14,
693–727.
Gaiha, R. (2003). Are millennium goals of poverty reduction useful? Oxford Devel-
opment Studies, 31(1), 59–84.
Gibson, F., & Pason, A. (2003). Levels of leadership: Developing leaders through
new models. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 23–37.
Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design and motivation to make a prosocial differ-
ence. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 393–417.
Grant, A. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, Prosoical impact, and
the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(2), 458–476.
Greenleaf, R. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Paulist Press.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist
approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships between
authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Busi-
ness Ethics Quarterly, 21(04), 555–578.
Hastings, P. D., Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J., Usher, B., & Bridges, D. (2000).
The development of concern for others in children with behavior problems.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 531–546.
Hernandez, M. (2008). Promoting stewardship behavior in organizations: A lead-
ership model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 121–128.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring
and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
REFERENCES 21
Hopkins, S. (2000). Effects of short-term service ministry trips on the development of

social responsibility in college students. Unpublished doctoral thesis, George Fox
University, Newberg.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004). In V. Gupta
(Ed.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
International Forum for Human Development. (2006). Social justice in an open
world: The role of the United Nations. New York: United Nations.
Johnson, C. (2011). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or
casting shadow. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l’Administration, 18(4), 257–265.
Kierkegaard, S. (2013). Kierkegaard’s writings, VI: Fear and trembling/repetition
(Vol. 6). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247.
Lawrence, J. T., & Beamish, P. W. (Eds.) (2012). Globally responsible leadership:
Managing according to the UN global compact. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Lord, R., & Brown, D. (2004). Leadership process and follower identity. London:
Routledge.
Macfarlane, B. (2005). The disengaged academic: The retreat from citizenship.
Higher Education Quarterly, 59(4), 296–310.
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2014). Conscious capitalism, with a new preface by the authors:
Liberating the heroic spirit of business. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Malone, M. (1994). Perpetual motion executive. Forbes, 153, 93–98.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national
natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological
capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 231–246.
Nakamura, M., & Watanabe-Muraoka, A. (2006). Global social responsibility:
Developing a scale for senior high school students in Japan. International Jour-
nal for the Advancement of Counseling, 28(3), 213–226.
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sj€oberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial
orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review,
20(1), 33–47.
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Moti-
vation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volun-
teers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671–686.
Paarlberg, L., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service
motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Adminis-
tration Review, 9(1), 710–718.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A
communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.
Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determi-

nants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 525–537.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Ridenour, J. (2007). The role of spirituality and the impact on social responsibility.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, George Fox University, Newberg.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships:
As developed in the client-centered framework (Vol. 3, pp. 184–256). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Russell, W. G., & Lipsky, D. (2008). The sustainable enterprise fieldbook: When it
all comes together. New York: American Management Association.
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.
Smith, K. T., Martin, H. M., & Smith, L. M. (2014). Human trafficking: A global
multi-billion dollar criminal industry. International Journal of Public Law and
Policy, 4(3), 293–308.
Sosik, J., Jung, D., & Dinger, S. (2009). Values in authentic action: Examining the
roots and of leadership. Group & Organization Management, 34(4), 395–431.
Storsletten, V. M., & Jakobsen, O. D. (2015). Development of leadership theory in
the perspective of Kierkegaard’s philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2),
337–349.
Trevi~no, 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.
Vitell, S. (2009). The role of religiosity in business ethic and consumer ethics: A
review of the literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 155–167.
Walker, L. J. (2004). Gus in the gap: Bridging the judgment-action gap in moral
functioning. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self and
identity (pp. 341–368). New York: Psychology Press.
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religious and ethical behavior in organiza-
tions: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27,
77–97.
Wheeler, W., & Edlebeck, C. (2006). Leading, learning, and unleashing potential:
Youth leadership and civic engagement. New Directions for Youth Development,
109, 89–112.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation:
Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89(1), 29.
CHAPTER 2
The Challenges Within Ethical Leadership

Theories
INTRODUCTION
Leadership research has advanced greatly in the last 30 years, although not
in the same direction (Yukl 1989). Burns (1978) suggested that leadership
may be the most observed but ironically least understood phenomenon on
earth (p. 2). For example, leadership has well over 50 definitions (Fleishman
et al. 1992; Northouse 2015). The multiplicity of leadership theories ranges
from trait-based to stylistic to situational, all of which are representative of
various perspectives on leadership (Northouse 2015). These apparent great
divergences in leadership theory suggest for some a quagmire, turning all
espoused leadership theories into nothing more than clever sophistry (Grint
2010).
Alternatively, the vast divergences may possibly express the multi-
dimensionality of leadership as a phenomenon and thus collectively suggest
that a new, diverse and vast connected territory is being discovered. One
example is the work of Hernandez et al. (2011), who have found confluences
within various leadership theories, showing how leadership theories correspond
and are interrelated and complementary in numerous aspects. As mentioned
previously, one often suggested commonality among leadership theories is the
inculcation of ethical behavior (Aronson 2001; Ciulla 2001; Johnson 2011;
Kanungo 2001), and, while this may generally be true, how closely leadership is
intrinsically connected with ethics is still being understood, challenged and
debated.

24 2 THE CHALLENGES WITHIN ETHICAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES
This chapter considers the history of research regarding leadership ethics,

specifically how classical philosophical ethical theories articulate with
established leadership theories. The chapter also explains how ethical lead-
ership theories predominantly use normative ethical action theory and then
resolves by suggesting how prosocial behavioral theory offers a new para-
digm when considering ethical or others-directed leadership. Prosocial
behavioral theory, as opposed to ethical theories, would be better suited
to the identification of authentic others-directed behavior and ultimately to
understanding how prosocial leaders are developed.
LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS: AN UNFOLDING HISTORY

The definition of leadership has changed since its inception as a unique field
of research. Ciulla (2014) notes eight epochs of iteration regarding the
definition(s) of leadership. For example, initially in the 1920s leadership was
defined as the ability of individuals to impress their will on followers,
compared with the 1990s where leadership referred largely to the leader/
follower relationship, which was concerned with the mutual purposes of
both. One widely accepted definition of leadership is from Northouse
(2015), who states, “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influ-
ences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). However, a
person can have many recognized traits or behaviors displaying leadership
qualities, and even be considered a leader by many, yet be unethical.
Anecdotally, history provides examples of leaders who fulfilled the defi-
nition of leadership but struggled with their personal moral lives. For
example, Martin Luther King, Jr., was reported by reputable sources to be
involved in extra-marital affairs (Fairclough 1995) and Woodrow Wilson
held racist beliefs while president of the United States (Yellin 2013). Yet, to
their credit, Woodrow Wilson and Martin Luther King, Jr., were also
responsible for leading positive social change. The issue is further compli-
cated by the existence of other leaders who fit the accepted definition
provided by Northouse (2015) but for whom history would be
hard-pressed to find any acts of moral goodness. Adolf Hitler, Benito
Mussolini, Pol Pot and Jim Jones are all examples of people who were
considered leaders but who also carried out horrific acts against humanity.
Ciulla (2005) calls this “the Hitler problem.” Unethical leaders are
still considered to be leaders, and regrettably a few individuals have even
considered their actions as leaders to be justifiable. Only recently has
academic research involving leadership ethics provided some context for
LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS: AN UNFOLDING HISTORY 25
understanding the connection between successful leaders who influenced a

group to achieve a common goal and their apparent ethical lapses.
Ciulla (2005) notes that as late as 1991 it was difficult to determine what
counted as leadership ethics and produced an edited volume, Ethics, The
Heart of Leadership (2013), which resulted in “starting points for under-
standing the work that needs to be carried out on ethics in leadership
studies” (p. 323). Yet, it is difficult, and for some counterintuitive, to accept
that leaders can be leaders and yet not act as morally good people. One
solution is offered by Johnson (2013), who alternatively suggests that
ethical leadership is a label that leaders earn from their followers, and thus
it is a practice involving personal behavior and moral influence (p. xxi),
although this recognition is dependent on followers’ motivations, percep-
tions and understanding of ethics—which is again problematic given
observer bias.
Levine and Boaks (2014) would reject the argument that followers are
interested in both an effective and an ethically good leader (p. 227). Levine
and Boaks suggest that, because of the typically unrecognized difference
between prescriptive and descriptive accounts of leadership, there is a
misconception that exists regarding leaders needing to be ethical. Specifi-
cally, when people consider what leadership should be, they generally think
of leaders fitting prescriptive theories; these theories prescribe that our
leaders be ethical, but in fact the description of actual behaviors of those
who are recognized as leaders is much more complex and multivariate. So,
the implicit preference for some, they argue, is for effective leaders over
ethical leaders, what Chap. 1 called utility leadership. For example, consider
a person with heart problems whose heart surgeon is proactive, responsible,
influential and effective in results but open about abusive behavior to
animals. Would a person be willing to run the personal risk of taking a less
competent but more ethically sound surgeon? Anecdotally, multiple real-life
examples can be found in the last 25 years where supporters are willing to
vote for or re-elect politicians who have engaged in unethical behavior (e.g.,
Bill Clinton despite his involvement with Monica Lewinsky or Trump
despite his derogatory comments towards woman).
Yet, leadership research supports the idea that trust is increased between
leaders and followers when leaders commit themselves to the ethical treat-
ment of their followers, which results in a mutual allegiance from which
community interdependence emerges (Graham 1995; Poff 2010). Yet, it
also remains true that some can be regarded as leaders by their followers
because they are effective, even though they are not ethical; some leaders
even have nonexistent ethical traits attributed to them because of positive

projection by their followers (Burrows 1981). Moreover, as already stated,
even when a leader does display ethical behaviors, it is possible the leader is
treating followers ethically just to obtain desired result(s), which is acting
ethically in order to attain a goal that is self-serving (e.g., generosity in pay,
with the motive to increase employee output).
So, while ethics is regarded as having domesticity with leadership, ethics
is still trying to find a residence within leadership theory (Levine and Boaks
2014). Mayer et al. (2009) captures this in the following: “Although
philosophers and theologians have long discussed the topic of ethical lead-
ership, it is not until recently that social scientists have begun to empirically
examine ethical aspects of leadership in organizations” (p. 1). Ironically, the
ire raised by the suggestion of considering ethics as a separate phenomenon
from, or not intrinsically connected to, leadership is surprising since most
leadership theories generally leave out ethical considerations (Barling et al.
2008; Brown and Trevi~no 2002), specifically classical philosophical ethical
theories (Ciulla 2005).
CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS’ PLACE WITHIN LEADERSHIP

THEORIES
An exploration of the two most commonly used terms for ethics does not
suggest a clear connection between ethics and leadership. Ethics, or the
other commonly used term morals, typically refers to an innate knowledge
of what is right or wrong, and this understanding transcends culture,
religion and time (Gill 2014; Stackhouse 1995). Specifically, these two
terms have the same etymological origin in that they both pertain to
expectations of how individuals ought to live (Gill 2014). Ciulla (2005)
notes, “The study of ethics is about what we should do and what we should
be. It’s about right, wrong, good, evil and the relationship of humans to
each other and to other living things” (p. xi). Ethics, in its broadest
understanding and application, pertains to human flourishing, and in this
broad sense leadership is a subset of ethics, as is every other human activity,
but the two are not synonymous.
The presence of ethical theories extends far back into human history,
with many scholars citing the ancient Greeks as the first to develop and
systematize ethical philosophies (MacIntyre 2003). Others suggest religion
as an initial source (Stackhouse 1995). Whatever the origins, the history of
CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS’ PLACE WITHIN LEADERSHIP. . . 27
development of ethical theories has delivered a wide range of understanding

of ultimate reality or truth (metaphysics) and methods for determining
when and how truth is established or known (epistemology), thus making
their prescriptions for how people ought to live multifarious. Thus, leader-
ship scholars who are looking to frame, support or re-envision leadership
around ethical theoretical prescriptions are endeavoring to draw from
ancient roots as deep and excursive as the human experience.
However, Stackhouse (1995), building off the work of Richard Niebuhr
(1960/1999), provides a rubric in an attempt to codify classical normative
ethical theories by placing them within the context of everyday questions
individuals would ask regarding obligations or oughts that each classical
ethical theory requires. Stackhouse suggests three concepts for classifica-
tion: “the right,” “the good” and “the fitting.” The right concerns itself
with universal ethical principles, the good is concerned with an individual’s
purpose or goals within ethical action and the fitting is concerned with how
to act within a particular situation. Each one of these concepts and the
corresponding questions align with an established subdiscipline within eth-
ical philosophy. Deontological ethical philosophy is concerned with what is
ultimately right and thus with one’s duty towards universal principles (the
right). Teleology is an ethical philosophy that concerns itself with purposes
or goals of the individual (the good), and ethology is an ethical philosophy
that concerns itself with specific individuals in specific settings (the fitting)
(Ewest 2017). See Table 2.1.
Ironically, in most discussions and research exploring the connection
between leadership and ethics, there is little or no mention of these classical
ethical theories, and very few leadership scholars build directly on the
theories, with only a few exceptions (Ciulla 2014; Ewest 2015). Moreover,
no leadership theory is holistic, including ethical philosophies from each
area of the rubric of the ethical subdisciplines—deontological, teleological
and ethological. Ciulla (2014) captures this in her book addressing ethics
and leadership by saying, “Philosophic writings on ethics are frequently
ignored or rejected because the writing is obtuse or tedious and the content
appears irrelevant to people writing about ethics in their own area of
research or practice” (p. 5).
Specifically, when leadership literature refers to a leader as being ethical, it
is, for the most part, with the possible exception being virtue theory, not
referring to any of the classical philosophical ethical theories but instead to a
leader who holds to a specific set of rational behavioral principles that are
Table 2.1 Categories of ethical concepts
Ethical concepts Established ethical subdisciplines Established

ethical theories
The right thing to do asks, “What Deontological morals argue Kantian

are the overarching universal that we are to make decisions Religious
principles and our duty to these based on our duty to the
principles?” universal
The good thing to do asks, “What is Teleological morals focus on Utilitarianism
the purpose or goal?” ends or goals that ought to be Social contract
sought
The fitting thing to do asks, “What Ethological morals are Virtue
is happening in this particular concerned with specific Ethical egoism
situation?” individuals and/or with specific Ethical altruism
settings
deemed ethical (Levine and Boaks 2014; Northouse 2015). Alternatively,

in a few cases, ethical leadership theories, while not directly based on
classical philosophical ethical theories, are based on research exploring the
behaviors or values of those who are labeled by the perception of their
followers as ethical leaders, and then the findings reference classical leader-
ship theories if and when they support the findings. The absence of classical
philosophical ethical theories as an anchor, frame or direct reference for
ethical leadership theories, and an expectation that leaders will model what
is normatively appropriate behavior, is an attestation to the caricature that
leadership and ethics must somehow be conjoined.
A survey of leadership theories that have professed connections to ethics
demonstrates an absence of classical ethical theories. And, without a con-
nection to an ethical theory to act as a rubric or a reference, leaders who
practice these professed ethical leadership theories must become self-
referencing, dependent on their own self-reflection (assessment) alone to
determine the appropriateness of their behavior and the congruence of the
behavior with ethical leadership theory. Correspondingly, the emphasis on
self-awareness results in a self-assessed sense of rightness, or a self-
righteousness, that can culminate in possible self-deception (Price 2003).
Ethical rubrics or frameworks derived from classical ethical theories
provide boundaries, logics and guidance for ethical thinking, and, since
most ethical leadership theories are devoid of connections to classical ethical
theories, ethical leadership theories lack ethical grounding and need
external accountability (Petrick and Quinn 2001). A brief overview of

specific ethically based leadership theories that have been deemed to have
positive outcomes for leaders and followers demonstrates this reality. These
credible leadership theories include EL, AL, SL, TL and spiritual leadership
(Toor and Ofori 2009). Each of these theories has as a key component
ethical behavior, but in each case ethics is used not in reference to the
classical established ethical theory but instead indicates that leaders will
model what is expected, normatively appropriate ethical behavior (Brown
et al. 2005), and, without a classical ethical theory as a reference, the leader
is left with only the self to reference and is thus exposed to self-deception
(Price 2003).
For example, one of the most widely used classical leadership theories,
which has a professed, albeit tacit, connection to classical ethical theory, is
transformational leadership. Bass and Riggio (2006) and Burns (1978) have
asserted that TL leaders can solve the world’s most critical problems and do
so through a leader’s adherence to ethical values (Kocsis 2002). Transfor-
mational leadership justifies and frames the appropriateness of these ethical
normative leadership behaviors based on Rawls’ (2009) theory of justice,
which defines both the values and corresponding behaviors of justice and
fairness. Some of the behaviors that illustrate the values of justice and
fairness are displayed with typically prescribed behaviors of the TL theory,
such as inspiring a vision within the community, empowering, listening and
helping communities become self-sustaining. While some of the ethical
leadership behaviors required for TL align with Rawls’ ethical framework,
a classical established ethical theory, other leadership behaviors do not and,
for example, emphasize influencing a group to arrive at the best outcomes
(e.g., challenge the process, see Kouzes and Posner 2012). Without
accountability to an ethical framework, TL leaders can demonstrate the
prescribed TL behaviors and be perceived as leaders by their followers,
but they can still lead with unethical goals (Parry and Proctor-Thomson
2002), behaving ethically only as a means to hide self-serving goals. Burns
regarded these leaders as pseudo-transformational leaders. A lack of TL
behaviors anchored in classical ethical theories, which arguably leads to
individual leaders who are self-referencing, and the existence of pseudo-
transformational leaders are both attestations to the bifurcation between
ethics and leadership.
Recognizing the concerns raised by the reality of pseudo-
transformational leadership, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) developed AL
theory as a corrective. In some respects, each of these leadership theories
is an attempt to get to an understanding of authentic ethical leadership

behavior. According to AL, the development of a leader is predicated on the
leader’s development of a positive ethical climate. Authentic leadership
theory was developed at a time when an ethical crisis was contributing to
financial and social crises and was dominating the headlines, which created a
clamor for trustworthy leadership. Luthans and Avolio (2003) argued that a
person with positive psychological capacities, operating in an ethical climate
and motivated by altruism, can use his or her own life experiences to form an
AL style that has as normatively appropriate behavior self-awareness, ethical
reasoning, balanced processing and transparency. Yet the same issues
arise with AL as are found in TL, specifically the reality of pseudo-
transformational leadership, and may be the result of a lack of articulation
with a classical ethical theory.
As mentioned earlier, Price (2003) argues that leaders may have positive
psychological characteristics but can be blinded by their own intrapersonal
values and in turn create a self-righteousness that doesn’t allow them to see
that their self-perceived moral convictions are immoral and self-serving.
Specifically, leaders can feel justified or moral in their actions and be
unethical since there is no patent connection to classical ethical frameworks.
But this may also illustrate the reality that leaders may not be aware of their
personal motivations, as will be discussed in Chap. 3.
The social change model (SCM), which was also an adaptation of Burns’
(1978) TL model, is a values-centered approach focusing on self-
knowledge, service and collaboration (Komives and Wagner 2009). This
model focuses on creating positive community change, but it suffers from
some of the same shortcomings already noted—a general lack of attribution
of leadership behaviors to classical philosophical ethical theories—and with
a lack of an ethical framework to provide boundaries, logic and guidance for
ethical thinking, the leader may in turn rely on ethics based on self-
knowledge, thus leading to self-deception (Price 2003).
Servant leadership, while not theoretically connected to TL, does empha-
size ethical principles as a necessary component, specifically ten principles
acting as virtues or guidelines. While SL does not directly articulate with
classical ethical philosophical theories, some scholars have connected SL to
virtue theory (Whetstone 2001), although the classical rigor and analysis of
virtue theory is not directly referenced in servant leadership. Normatively
appropriate behaviors are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persua-
sion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth and
building community. Generally, SL leaders serve others by paying close
attention to the unique needs of the people who follow them (Greenleaf
1977). Consider Greenleaf’s (1977) classic statement: “The servant leader
is servant first. It begins with a natural feeling that one wants to serve, to
serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (p. 27).
Servant leadership is also actuated by self-awareness (Johnson 2011), but, as
discussed, self-awareness when operative also opens itself to the possibility of
self-deception.
Ethical leadership is different from other positive ethical leadership the-
ories. While the other positive ethical leadership theories have an ethical
component, EL has a dedicated emphasis on ethical normatively appropri-
ate behavior, including considerate behavior, honesty, trust in the leader
and interactional fairness. Ethical leadership also incorporates social learning
theory, which dictates that leaders are responsible for rewarding, punishing
and modeling appropriate leadership behaviors to followers. Brown et al.
(2005) summarize this with the following, suggesting that EL is, “The
development of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions
and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to
followers through two-way communication, reinforcement and decision
making” (p. 129). Ethical leadership is still in its infancy but presents the
same challenges theoretically as do the other leadership theories discussed in
that there is no connection to classical ethical theory to act as an anchor or
guide, and thus ethical leaders can fall victim to their own moral self-
deception.
Other emerging leadership theories such as spiritual leadership (Fry
2003) may not suffer from the same overt focus on normatively appropriate
behavior as found in other leadership theories. Fry (2003) defines ethical
well-being as authentically living one’s values, attitudes, and behavior from
the inside-out in creating a life that is principled-center congruent with the
universal (Cashman 1998; Covey 1991; Fry 2003). Again, spiritual leader-
ship does not have direct articulation with and connection to classical ethical
philosophies and thus opens up the leader to moral self-deception; however,
the focus on internal intrinsic values does suggest more theoretical simili-
tude to prosocial leadership.
Each of these credible positive leadership theories is an attestation to the
caricature of ethical leadership as connected to and thus representing clas-
sical ethical understandings and perspectives. Yet, none uses classical ethical
theories as a framework. Each of these theories defaults to self-reflection or
self-awareness and thus opens itself up to self-deception. Generally, leader-
ship theories’ connection with classical ethical theories is insubstantial or at
best still emerging (Mayer et al. 2009), and thus ethical leadership theories
prescribe that their exemplary leaders depend on self-reflection and adhere
to prescribed normatively appropriate behavior as depicted by the adopted
theory. The indication is that a more direct and immediate connection to
classical ethical theories is needed to avoid self-deception, which leads to
moral ambiguity initially at the personal level. Ultimately, this affects fol-
lowers since they can be held hostage to the leader’s self-serving and
possibly self-affirming morals, devoid of consideration of others’ needs.
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND NORMATIVE ETHICAL ACTION THEORY

The caricature of leadership theories as being ethical and thus representing,
even tacitly, classical ethical theories is but one of the challenges to be
considered. A second caricature is the restricting of leadership ethics to
normative action ethical theory without consideration of any of the other
categories of normative ethical discourse, forsaking a more holistic under-
standing of ethics’ role in ethical leadership behavior.
Veatch (2016) provides a clear description of the levels of moral dis-
course, which acts as a holistic depiction of the levels of classical moral
reasoning found within classical ethical philosophy. The four levels
presented by Veatch include cases, rules and rights, normative ethics and
metaethics. Cases, Veatch (2016) argues, are frequently the starting place
for moral discourse. Cases typically act in an advisory role by providing
examples for comparing a present ethical dilemma with similar ethical
situations, where the dilemma was resolved within acceptable ethical param-
eters. Here, the person draws upon knowledge of similar features between
the present case and the paradigm case that acts as a guide. For example, a
religious person may draw from biblical narratives, or a physician may draw
upon a previously established patient case where there is general agreement
among colleagues. However, if new ethical issues arise that the established
paradigm represented by cases cannot solve, or if there are disagreements
between paradigm cases, then this level of moral reasoning becomes inad-
equate. For example, if the childhood paradigm story (case) of George
Washington and the cherry tree is used to resolve the moral dilemma of a
whistle blower who loses his job, the two stories, or cases, stand in opposi-
tion and the paradigm case is inadequate (Veatch 2016).
The second level of moral discourse or reasoning involves rules and
rights. Rules and rights are grounded in a moral system that outlines
behavioral norms and beliefs about right and wrong, where the authority
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND NORMATIVE ETHICAL ACTION THEORY 33
of the chosen norms is endorsed or supported by the specific authority of a

group or community who created the code. When these rules or rights are
codified, they are sometimes referred to as a “code of ethics.” At this level,
specific laws and/or rules act as a general guide or they can be taken as
nonnegotiable absolutes. However, if rules and rights are not able to resolve
the moral issue, then a more in-depth analysis is called for (Veatch 2016).
For example, companies may have a code of ethics regarding transparency
towards the customer that every employee needs to sign. Yet, this same code
cannot anticipate how transparency towards customers may have to be
avoided in the case of innovations, specific legal matters, patents or protec-
tion of other customers’ rights.
The next level of moral discourse, referred to as normative ethics, has
three discrete categories: action, value and virtue. It important to note that,
in every normative category, norms are generalized and apply to a wide
range of conduct and character, and correspondingly only a limited number
of norms is necessary. The first category, the action theory category of
normative ethics (or duty category, for some), is the most commonly used
when including ethics within leadership theory. The action category asks
which “principles make actions morally right” (Veatch 2016, p. 5), consid-
ering what is normatively appropriate behavior. The use of action theory
most often involves a list of moral principles, and these principles act as a
means for determining if actions meet the characteristics of the ethical
principles and thus if the actions can be determined to be moral. Reason is
typically employed as the method of determining if the principle(s) and the
action(s) align with each other. For example, if a leader is believed to be
acting in a benevolent manner, a determination can be made by estimating
how his or her actions characterize the principle of benevolence. Action
theory corresponds most readily with deontological classical ethical theo-
ries, but the normative actions category is not restricted to one classical
ethical theory.
Virtue-normative ethical theory, the second category, is used less fre-
quently within leadership studies and asks, “What character traits are praise-
worthy?” (Veatch 2016, p. 6) But, unlike action theory, virtue theory does
not consider the content of actions but instead considers the character
development of the person who engages in those actions. This category of
normative ethics is used less frequently in ethical leadership studies but can
be found in ethical leadership theories that emphasize character develop-
ment (e.g., servant leadership). The virtue-normative category of ethics
aligns with ethological classical ethical theories.
The final category, the values theory of normative ethics, concerns itself
with answering the question, “What is the benefit of one’s actions?” “More-
over, it is also the normative category that is best positioned to consider
behavioral antecedents. This consideration can also explore what a person
considers to be of ‘intrinsic value’” (Veatch 2016, p. 6), considering desir-
able end-states or goals, and the corresponding internal motivation of an
individual’s values. The values-normative ethical category is aligned with
ethological and teleological ethical categories and is represented by utilitar-
ian, ethical altruism and ethical egoism classical ethical theories, and
prosocial leadership can be framed within the classical ethical leadership
theory of ethical altruism. It is this final category that aligns with prosocial
leadership.
Prosocial leadership has its origins within prosocial psychology, which
concerns itself with the question, “What motivates and leads to the devel-
opment of morally good people who exhibit others-directed behavior?”
And, since prosocial psychology and, correspondingly, prosocial leadership
are rooted in the science of understanding intrinsic human prosocial values
and not in compliance with normative rules as a first criterion, there is a
possible broadening of the ethical leadership dialogue to include the values
category of normative ethics. This broadening of the moral discussion is
critical in developing a more holistic and thus human-centered understand-
ing, since ethics is a multilevel, multidimensional human phenomenon. For
example, presently the conversation regarding ethical leadership is typically
framed by the question, “What is the connection between ethics and
leadership?” But if, as Ciulla (2005) suggests, the question researchers
should be asking is, “What constitutes morally good leadership?” (p. 27),
then the nature of this second question allows for the broadening of the
ethical conversation to include all three categories of normative ethics.
The last and highest level of moral discourse, metaethics, occurs when
individuals are not able to find agreement within or between existing moral
rules and rights and normative ethical categories. Thus, metaethical con-
versations appeal to ultimate sources of moral action, such as the existence
of universal principles, religion or culture. Metaethics also considers episte-
mological questions regarding the certainty of these ultimate ethical
sources. A metaethical discussion can be applied to and held entirely within
one of the normative ethical categories, or an ethical configuration and
corresponding analysis can involve all three categories. All three normative
ethical categories (action, virtue, values) draw from various sources, either
those considered independent of human creation, such as universal moral
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND NORMATIVE ETHICAL ACTION THEORY 35
truth, or truth created and dependent on human creation, such as culture

(Veatch 2016).
Veatch (2016) argues that a full theory of ethics would need to include
all aspects of moral discourse with consistency in order to bring all four
levels of the moral discourse into equilibrium, providing a holistic under-
standing of ethical implications. Yet, while ethical leadership theories draw
from a variety of metaethical sources (i.e., religion, principles, culture), they
have collectively favored the action theory of normative ethics, generally
have no formal code of ethics, and have a miscellaneous assortment of
representative cases typically used as examples of leadership exemplars
(e.g., Jack Welch, Earnest Shackleton).
As previously stated, leadership researchers overwhelmingly consider
behavior or character that is correspondingly characterized by the applica-
tion of universal principles demonstrative of normative action ethical theory
and, to a lesser extent, virtue theory. For example, Northouse (2015)
bifurcates ethical leadership theories into two groups, stating, “Theories
can be thought of as falling within two broad domains: theories about
leaders’ conduct and theories about leadership character” (p. 424). Thus,
normative ethics’ action or virtue categories, when they operate as the basis
for existing leadership theories, typically focus on the levels of adherence
leaders’ actions conscribe to basic ethical principles as depicted in a selected
leadership theory or, to a lesser extent, on leaders’ personal character
choices as represented by behaviors. To restate, the majority of emphasis
in leadership studies is placed on the action category, marginalizing the
virtue category and largely ignoring the values category of normative ethics.
This is seen in the following statement: “The normative perspective is
rooted in philosophy and is concerned with prescribing how individuals
‘ought’ or ‘should’ behave in the workplace” (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999,
p. 583).
Specifically, no ethical leadership theory is holistic, addressing every
aspect of moral discourse, and few leadership theories consider, even tacitly,
how internal values, either as end-states or motivators, enable or determine
how individual leaders arrive at desired moral goals. Prosocial leadership,
when compared to existing ethical leadership theories that focus on action
or the virtue-normative ethical category, offers a differing, complementary
and in some respects more complete perspective on ethical leadership, since
it broadens the moral discussion. See Table 2.2. Again, the intent here is not
to abandon ethical leadership theories that are anchored within the
Table 2.2 Comparative levels of discussion concerning ethical leadership
Levels of ethical discourse Leadership theories based on Leadership theories based on

normative action or virtue-based normative values-based theory
theory
Metaethics: Universal moral truths, to which individuals appeal

Universal natural human condition or design to which humans
appeal to moral truth
Normative ethical Action- or Virtue-based lead- Values-based leadership theories
theory: ership theories focusing on how focus on how behaviors repre-
behaviors match universal prin- sent intrinsically valued or indi-
ciples, or how individual traits vidually desirable end-states or
are considered preferable based goals, and consider the
on the same universal principles corresponding internal
motivation
Rules and rights Largely stated as rules or Stated as human values, which
(codes of ethics): desired character traits, e.g., act as end-states and motivation,
“Pride comes before the fall” e.g., “She was driven by com-
passion to be known as a
servant”
Cases (casuistry): Icarus, the Greek myth (Mother Teresa)
Adapted from Veatch, R. M. (2016). The basics of bioethics. Routledge
normative ethical action category but to broaden the conversation to incor-

porate all three normative categories.
Normatively appropriate behavior (normative action theory) found in
ethical leadership behavior is important because it engenders trust within
the leader/follower relationship (Eubanks et al. 2012), but, if the leader’s
actions are in simple compliance with normative principles, where obedi-
ence to rules alone is the goal (utility leadership), it becomes difficult if not
impossible to determine the intrinsic motivation of the individual. And,
without knowledge of motivation, it leaves open the possibility of the leader
using people for self-serving ends. The broadening of the moral discussion
to all three categories of the normative ethical discussion can avoid some of
the previously mentioned issues.
This book suggests that the values category of normative ethical theory is
largely unexplored, thus inhibiting the development of a robust moral
discourse concerning ethical leadership. And, while beyond the scope of
this book’s research and content, the awareness of the omission of the values
category of normative ethics discussed in this chapter does tacitly encourage
BROADENING THE PARADIGM 37
ethical leadership scholars to develop ethical leadership theories that are

holistic in addressing all aspects of moral discourse. The challenges with
ethical leadership theories being centered on normative ethical action the-
ory create systemic issues that include the weak or moderate association
between moral reasoning and moral action or behavior (Blasi 1983; Berg-
man 2004; Hoffman 2000; Walker 2004); the tendency to ignore other
motivators including emotions (Eisenberg 1986; Hoffman 2000), intui-
tions (Haidt 2001) and religion (Vitell 2009; Weaver and Agle 2002); and a
dependency on self-awareness, which enables self-deception regarding
morality. All of these conditions create myopic and reductionist ethical
leadership theories.
Yet, for some, the inclusion of values-based normative ethical theory
implies a dangerous shift towards subjective-based metaethics, and thus a
shift towards ethical subjectivism (relativism). This sentiment is derived
from deeply held assumptions, beliefs or presuppositions about the nature
of metaphysical reality as being fixed, as opposed to anthropological or
subjective. These differing presuppositions are representative of the biggest
rift within metaethics, the consideration of whether ethics exists indepen-
dently of any human belief, whether proof ethics exists (realists), or, alter-
natively, whether ethics is not independent of humans and is created by
humans (subjectivists). But the reality is that the discussion involving meta-
ethics is more complex, comprehensive and inclusive than these simple
polarities.
BROADENING THE PARADIGM

Within the realist metaethical perspective there are further distinctions. For
realist scholars, moral values are independent of human belief or culture, as
is typically the case in the normative ethical action and virtue categories, and
other realists believe that ethical truths are dependent on and connected to
the human condition or the devolvement of human culture. This second
perspective does not suggest that ethics is subjective (relative), but that the
universality of truth found in ethics is not represented in ideal principles
alone (e.g., Platonic), but instead ethics is tied to and revealed through the
human essence or existence. This perspective is regarded as the naturalistic
tradition.
The naturalistic tradition of moral realism is grounded in the universal
features or characteristics of humans, including their personal goals. And,
while numerous different aspects, features or characteristics of the human
condition can be considered within the ethical conversation, in this tradi-

tion, the assumption is that ethics or truth is universal. While the scope of
the naturalistic tradition is expansive, it does include scholars who consider
the nature of metaethics to consist of universal principles, and these princi-
ples are discovered through individual agentic action representing intrinsic
moral human values, and are objective and attached to the human condition
and design. See; David Wiggins (1976), Sabina Lovibond (1983), David
McNaughton (1988), Mark Platts (1991) and Jonathan Dancy (2000). For
example, research concerning mirror neurons suggests that humans are
designed for empathetic response, which leads to altruistic action as a
universal deontological truth or principle (Decety and Jackson 2004;
Lieberman et al. 2002). Consequently, the inclusion of the values theory
of normative categories does not negate objective truth but does broaden
the moral discussion beyond the normative action category and
corresponding principles to include human teleology, as is found in the
social scientific perspective.
The proposed broadening of ethical leadership theories to include other
normative categories besides the frequently used normative category of
action and, to a lesser extent, the category of virtue may appear to some as
a paradigm shift (Kuhn 2012). But, the provocation is not to shift but to
broaden the ongoing moral conversation regarding the ethical moorings of
leadership as it relates to a more holistic understanding of normative ethical
theory. The advantage of complementing normative ethical action theory
and virtue theory with the values category is not only a broadening of the
moral discussion but also avoiding reductionist tendencies that lead to
prescriptions that are not in line with the human leadership experience.
SUMMARY
This chapter considered the history of research regarding leadership ethics,
how classical philosophical ethical theories are related to established leader-
ship theories and how ethical leadership theories predominantly use nor-
mative ethical action theory. The intent of the chapter was to broaden the
use of normative ethical categories within leadership theory and also to
provide a perspective on the nature of the existing conversation regarding
normative ethical theory and to encourage its expansion.
Prosocial leadership theory considers personal intrinsic values, desirable
end-states or goals, and the corresponding internal motivation of individ-
uals’ values. Specifically, prosocial leaders are motivated by and respond to
REFERENCES 39
the interpersonal value of empathy, resulting in altruistic behaviors that

bring about the welfare of followers and those they are committed to
serve. Thus, prosocial leadership and prosocial behavioral theory can
broaden the paradigm when considering ethical or others-directed leader-
ship, allowing for identification of authentic others-directed leadership
behavior. The foundation of prosocial leadership, which is a set of prosocial
intrinsic human values, is discussed in more depth in the next chapter.
REFERENCES
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership:
Toward the development and test of a model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81,
851–861.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transforma-
tional leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Brown, M. E., & Trevi~no, L. K. (2002, August). Conceptualizing and measuring
ethical leadership: Development of an instrument. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2002(1), D1–D6. Academy of Management.
Brown, M. E., Trevi~no, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.
Burrows, P. B. (1981). Parent orientation and member-leader behavior: A measure
of transference in groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 31(2),
175–191.
Cashman, K. (1998). Leadership from the inside out. Provo: Executive Excellence
Publishing.
Ciulla, J. B. (2005). The state of leadership ethics and the work that lies before
us. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 323–335.
Ciulla, J. B. (2013). Leadership ethics. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (2014). Leadership ethics: Expanding the territory, in ethics, the
heart of leadership. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: ABC-CLIO.
Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Fireside/Simon &
Schuster.
Dancy, J. (2000). Practical reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon
Press.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100.
Erlbaum.
Eubanks, D. L., Brown, A. D., & Ybema, S. (Eds.). (2012). Leadership, identity,
and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 1–3.
Studies, 9(3), 53–54.
Fairclough, A. (1995). Martin Luther King, Jr. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., &
Hein, M. B. (1992). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A
synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245–287.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(6), 693–727.
Gill, R. (2014). Theory and practice of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Graham, J. W. (1995). Leadership, moral development, and citizenship behavior.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(01), 43–54.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. Mahwah: Paulist Press.
Grint, K. (2010). Leadership: A very short introduction (Vol. 237). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and
mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership
theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1165–1185.
Johnson, C. E. (2013). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or
shadow. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
REFERENCES 41

Kocsis, M. (2002). State sovereignty in current global politics: Human rights,
state boundaries and humanitarian intervention. Discourse: An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Philosophy, 8.
Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. (2009). Leadership for a better world. Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make
extraordinary things happen in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd enl. ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Levine, M. P., & Boaks, J. (2014). What does ethics have to do with leadership?
Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 225–242.
Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflection and
reflexion: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 199–249.
Lovibond, S. (1983). Realism and imagination in ethics (p. 81). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development
approach. Positive organizational behavior (pp. 241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
MacIntyre, A. (2003). A short history of ethics: A history of moral philosophy from the
Homeric age to the 20th century. London, UK: Routledge.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009).
How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.
McNaughton, D. (1988). Moral vision: An introduction to ethics. Hoboken:
Blackwell.
Niebuhr, H. R. (1999). The responsible self: An essay in Christian moral philosophy.
Westminster: John Knox Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transforma-
tional leaders in organizational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75–96.
Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. (2001). The challenge of leadership accountability for
integrity capacity as a strategic asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3), 331–343.
Platts, M. (1991). Moral realities. An essay in philosophical psychology. London/New
York: Routledge.
Poff, D. C. (2010). Ethical leadership and global citizenship: Considerations for a
just and sustainable future. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 9–14.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Lead-

ership Quarterly, 14(1), 67–81.
Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stackhouse, M. (1995). Introductions foundations and purpose. In M. Stackhouse,
D. McCann, S. Roels, & P. Williams (Eds.), On moral business: Classical and
contemporary resources for ethics in economic life. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.
Toor, S. U. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships
with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational cul-
ture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533–547.
Veatch, R. M. (2016). The basics of bioethics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
77–97.
Whetstone, J. T. (2001). How virtue fits within business ethics. Journal of Business
Ethics, 33(2), 101–114.
Wiggins, D. (1976). Locke, Butler and the stream of consciousness: And men as a
natural kind. Philosophy, 51(196), 131–158.
Yellin, E. S. (2013). Racism in the nation’s service: Government workers and the color
line in Woodrow Wilson’s America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press Books.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly
Review of Management, 15(4), 251–289.
CHAPTER 3
What Is Prosocial Behavior’s Connection

to Leadership?
INTRODUCTION
Social scientists’ longstanding appreciation of the importance of the role of
power in leadership was first recognized by Weber (2009), who suggested a
relationship between leadership and power. For Weber, power represented
the ability of individuals to achieve goals despite opposition. Weber believed
that the power to achieve goals came from one of three sources: traditional,
legal rational or charismatic, with each type of power creating differing
outcomes and abilities for the leader (Wallimann et al. 1977). This early
proposition concerning the connection of leadership and power to achiev-
ing personal goals still provides some insight into individual leader motiva-
tions and is still operative today.
Greene (2000) sold over 2.1 million copies of the book The 48 Laws of
Power, which has been regarded as “ruthless, cunning and amoral, drawing
from the best of ideals of Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and Carl Von Clausewitz”
(Lynskey 2012, para. 5). Green’s book included such laws of power as Law
14, “Pose as a friend, work as a spy” (p. 101), and Law 15, “Crush your
enemy totally” (p. 107). Green’s book resonated with some individuals,
especially celebrities and inmates, among whom survival is only for the
fittest and competition is considered commonplace. For these groups of
people, it illustrated the reality in which they believed they lived and the best
way to use their personal power to navigate relationships and be successful
(Chang 2011).

44 3 WHAT IS PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR’S CONNECTION TO LEADERSHIP?
The enticement of developing personal power to ensure the importance

and analogous enhancement of the self through attainment of personal
goals and aspirations can be intoxicating. The desire for personal power is
the motivating element behind disingenuous forms of leadership (e.g.,
pseudo-transformational leaders, who use leadership to advance themselves
and their agenda, thus increasing personal power [Burns 1978]). The leader
who can gain power and control and influence over the lives of others in
order to achieve his or her own personal goals is the antipathy of prosocial
leadership. Such leaders do not empower their followers, and often use their
position as a means to reinforce their personal need for power, causing job
stress for subordinates (Erkutlu and Chafra 2006). Instead of empowering
others and finding mutual flourishing by seeking the welfare of others they
are committed to serve, these self-serving leaders treat individuals as objects,
using them as a means to an end, captured within the leader’s personal
desire for power in order to satisfy the leader’s own goals.
This chapter begins by exploring personal power, antisocial behavior and
the current trend in organizations to shift away from antisocial treatment of
employees. The chapter then considers prosocial behavioral theory, which
acts as an anchor for the prosocial leadership and the prosocial leadership
development process defined in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The chapter
resolves by considering existing connections between ethical leadership
theories and prosocial behavior.
Martin Buber (1970), the Austrian-born Israeli Jewish philosopher,
captures this idea of the self-serving individual by suggesting that individuals
either experience the world, and the people in it, as objects or “its”; or
individuals relate to the world, and regard other individuals as “thous”.
When individuals regard others as “thous” they meet others as they are,
not objectifying them for personal use or determining their value. While
individual behaviors may appear good, the intent or regard given the other
person in the relationship is what determines whether someone is authen-
tically served. For example, when people volunteer to help the poor, they
can see others as “its”, objects for which they can determine the value, or
alternatively devalue, help or ignore. But, because individuals can determine
the value of the persons they encounter, they also can be used as needed
based on the leader’s own agenda, and thus even apparent benevolent
actions are unethical. Alternatively, regarding others as “thous” indicates a
shift in attitude and belief, wherein leaders decide they cannot determine
their value or worth as if individuals were objects. Within this second
attitude, individuals (leaders) receive others as they are, seeing them as
INTRODUCTION 45
coequals, creating the very conditions that foster empathetic concern

(Batson 2010).
In fact, those who have consistently developed specific patterns of behav-
ior that disregard, devalue or violate the rights of others can be diagnosed
with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) as defined in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual (DSM) (American Psychiatric Association 2013).
According to the DSM this disorder may also include an impoverished
moral sense, a history of crime and impulsive or aggressive behavior.
ASPD as defined by the DSM may generally be more apt to be associated
with behavioral traits than personality disorders, but the reality of this
disorder is well known (Hare et al. 1991). Ironically, the tendency to
objectify individuals—and the corresponding antisocial behaviors associated
with such objectification—is displayed by leaders who rely on personal
power (pseudo-transformational) instead of on affiliations with coworkers
who are regarded as coequals. Whitehead (2009) writes, “Pro-social leaders
are inclusive and build affiliation, while anti-social leaders are exclusive and
rely on power” (p. 848).
Greene’s (2000) suggesting the use of power to get what you want by
objectifying individuals may be perceived by some as immoral, but Green
argues that this attitude is realistic given the nature of reality within orga-
nizations. Green states, “These laws . . . people might say, ‘Oh they’re
wicked—But, they’re practiced day in and day out by businesspeople”
(Chang 2011, para 13). To be certain, there are leaders within organiza-
tions who practice antisocial behavior, act immorally, rely on personal
power, do not seek interpersonal affiliations and treat people as objects
who can be used as a means to achieve their own personal goals. But Pfeffer
(1992) suggests that the reality in the workplace back in the 1990’s when
Green wrote his book, was not that leaders leveraged their power and
manipulated people for their own self-interest, but simply to rid themselves
of those with whom they could not work (Pfeffer 1992).
Currently, leaders of organizations are resisting antisocial tendencies,
such as ignoring employees’ rights and objectifying them, and moving
towards understanding the affinities and interdependence they have with
employees and looking for ways to ensure employees’ rights and well-being
(Ewest 2015; Fry 2003; Whitehead 2009). The tendency within organiza-
tions and the leaders who guide them within North America, and increas-
ingly globally, is to try to better determine how to honor employees’ rights
and act in prosocial ways towards others (Lawrence and Beamish 2012).
WHAT IS PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR?

The field of prosocial behavior considers actions, attitudes and motivational
values that are intended for and directly benefit others. Prosocial behaviors
are a vital aspect of human flourishing and critical to human survival, since
they are essential to “developing and maintaining harmonious relation-
ships” (Padilla-Walker and Carlo 2015, p. 4). Prosocial behavioral research
also considers the development, motivation, antecedents and correlates of
prosocial action. To be certain the field of prosocial behavioral research is
multidimensional, considering a wide range of motivations and behaviors,
as well as various stages of life and life context (e.g., family, social groups,
gender, etc.). Yet, even with the narrowing of prosocial behavioral research
to the category of prosocial motivation, the study of prosocial behavioral
motivational research is well beyond the scope of this book. Therefore, as
mentioned earlier, for the purposes of this book, we will merely consider
motivational aspects of prosocial behavior as presented by Rokeach (1973),
Schwartz (1994), Starrett (1996) and Batson (2010).
First, it is important to recognize that human values are being suggested
as the motivational impetus for all human behavior and secondarily that this
proposition aligns theoretically with the values category of normative ethical
theory. Next, it is suggested that a specific set of human values acts as a
prosocial intrinsic motivator, which would have theoretical correspondence
to the classical ethical leadership theory of ethical altruism and, within
metaethics, corresponds to the naturalistic tradition of moral realism. How-
ever, within prosocial psychology the research is framed by and concerns
itself with the question, “What motivates and leads to the development of
morally good people?” (Starrett 1996, p. 37), echoing Ciulla’s (1995)
earlier suggestion that researchers should be asking “What constitutes
morally good leadership?” (p. 27), but with the additional inclusion here
of motivation and development.
One of the first to codify and present the theory of intrinsic human values
as the motivator behind all human behavior and attitudes was Rokeach
(1973) in his book The Nature of Human Values. Rokeach understood
human values as “desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance,
that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” (p. 21). Human values fall
within two categories, instrumental and terminal. Terminal values refer to
desirable end goals a person would like to achieve during his or her lifetime.
Instrumental values refer to motivational states and corresponding modes of
behavior used by individuals as the means of achieving terminal values. In
WHAT IS PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR? 47
Table 3.1 Rokeach Terminal values Instrumental values

human values
1. True friendship 1. Cheerfulness
2. Mature love 2. Ambition
3. Self-respect 3. Love
4. Happiness 4. Cleanliness
5. Inner harmony 5. Self-control
6. Equality 6. Capability
7. Freedom 7. Courage
8. Pleasure 8. Politeness
9. Social recognition 9. Honesty
10. Wisdom 10. Imagination
11. Salvation 11. Independence
12. Family security 12. Intellect
13. National security 13. Broad-mindedness
14. A sense of accomplishment 14. Logic
15. A world of beauty 15. Obedience
16. A world at peace 16. Helpfulness
17. A comfortable life 17. Responsibility
18. An exciting life 18. Forgiveness
all, Rokeach argued for eighteen terminal values and eighteen instrumental
values. See Table 3.1. Rokeach also posited that this small number of human
values was universal for all humans, able to be arranged into different
structures, and the result of societal and psychological demands.
Out of the various terminal values, Rokeach believed that the terminal
values of equality, a world at peace and a world of beauty best represented
prosocial values. Numerous scholars support both the modality and the
intrinsic nature of human values as the theory which best describes the
universal motivational condition for humans (Haidt and Graham 2007;
Rawls 1971; Rokeach 1973; Schwartz 1994; Starrett 1996). Rokeach’s
theory is also the base and primary structure for several other theories of
human values and corresponding surveys (Crosby et al. 1990; Braithwaite
2006; Mahoney and Katz 1976).
Maybe the best representation of a values theory, with articulating
survey, which corresponds most completely to Rokeach’s (1973) theory,
comes from Schwartz (1999). Building primarily off Rokeach, Schwartz
identifies a set of ten instrumental human values that act as human instru-
mental motivations. These ten values are self-direction, stimulation, hedo-
nism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence and
universalism. See Table 3.2 for full descriptions.
Table 3.2 Schwartz’ ten instrumental values
1. Self-direction. Independent thought and action; choosing, creating, exploring

2. Stimulation. Excitement, novelty and challenge in life
3. Hedonism. Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself
4. Achievement. Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social
standards
5. Power. Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
6. Security. Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships and of self
7. Conformity. Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others
and violate social expectations or norms
8. Tradition. Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional
culture or religion provides the self
9. Benevolence. Preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent
personal contact (the ‘in-group’)
10. Universalism. Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all
people and for nature
Each of the ten instrumental values has a specific motivational or terminal

goal; these various goals, as initially theorized by Rokeach (1973), can stand
in opposition to each other. The various terminal or end-state motivational
goals include openness to change, self-transcendence, self-enhancement
and conservation (Schwartz 1994). See Fig. 3.1 for a full depiction of the
modality of instrumental and terminal goals.
For both Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1994) the above values are
universal, intrinsic to the human condition, encompassing “needs of indi-
viduals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social interaction,
and survival and welfare needs of groups” (Schwartz 1994, p. 4). The ten
basic values, with corresponding goals, are intended to include all the core
values recognized in cultures around the world. Like other values theorists,
Schwartz understands a person’s values as being determined by life circum-
stances and therefore relative to a person’s age, education, gender and other
external circumstances. Other aspects include socialization, learning expe-
riences and social roles with their expectations, sanctions and abilities. The
differences in individual backgrounds are what determine how individuals
prioritize their values.
Finally, Starrett (1996) continues the work of Rokeach (1973) and
Schwartz (1994), but specifically focuses on prosocial values, developing
the Global Social Responsibility Inventory (GSRI). Starrett developed the
GSRI using moral values theory as a theoretical framework, relying heavily
on the work of Schwartz (1994) but also creating a codified summary.
Fig. 3.1 Schwartz’ human values (Adapted from Schwartz 1994)
Starrett’s theory and accompanying instrument focuses on Schwartz’ values

of stimulation (exciting life), self-direction (creativity and freedom), univer-
salism (social justice and equity) and benevolence (helpfulness). Schwartz’
value of universalism is most central to Starrett’s scale. Starrett writes,
“These summaries of values provide a cluster of values associated with
global social responsibility, but I believe the Schwartz universalism value
type provides the most representative single set of values that underlie the
Global Social Responsibility Inventory” (p. 552). The GSRI is used in the
research contained within Chap. 10 of this book.
Thus Starrett (1996) was concerned specifically with prosocial values that
lead to social responsibility and not with the full range of human values as
were Schwartz and Rokeach. For Starrett Global Social Responsibility
(GSR) is a socially attuned or consistent behavior of responsible citizenship
in a person’s local and global community, i.e., prosocial behavior. Global
responsibility includes attitudes of fairness, dependability, loyalty and duty
towards others. Individuals with high GSR scores show deep concern for
others with a strong sense of justice even at the cost of personal privilege
(Starrett 1996, p. 535). These global citizens, whom this book defines more
specifically as stewards, are motivated by the specific instrumental values of
universalism and benevolence, which lead to prosocial behaviors.
The research presented by Rokeach (1973), Schwartz (1994) and
Starrett (1996) recognizes that intrinsic human values are the motivational
force behind behaviors, including leadership behavior, and that the forma-
tion of these values and corresponding behavior is multivariate. The indi-
cation is that leadership behaviors, even those behaviors which appear
ethical, may be motivated by self-serving means, and thus be self-enhancing.
The insight provided by Rokeach, Swartz and Starrett, as well as other
prosocial behavioral researchers, suggests that behaviors are representative
of personal yet universally common terminal goals, such as self-
enhancement (personal power) or self-abatement (welfare of others), and
serve a utilitarian function, ultimately including the intrapersonal goal of
whom the individual seeks to become.
Thus to assess the ethical intention of an individual leader’s behaviors,
based solely on external behavioral manifestations and their adherence to
principles, does little to determine the purpose and motivations of those
behaviors, since behaviors are given meaning only by intrapersonal terminal
values (goals or end-states). The indication of the collective prosocial
scholars’ work, when applied to leadership theory, is that some leadership
behaviors are derived from the instrumental motivational values of personal
achievement and power, thus leading to the terminal goal of self-
enhancement. In contrast, other leadership behaviors are derived from
instrumental motivational values of universalism and benevolence, thus
having as a terminal goal self-transcendence or the welfare of others. More-
over, the application of these prosocial theoretical understandings leads to
conditions where any leadership theory anchored in prosocial behavioral
psychology must be dynamic since the values are constructed from ante-
cedents. The indication for leadership behavior is that a leader may be
honest, which is normatively expected as appropriate behavior; but if the
individual leader is motivated by the instrumental goal of achievement then
the leader is ultimately seeking self-enhancement as his or her terminal goal
and thus not acting ethically.
Finally, specific to this book is Batson’s (2010) research, which focuses
on two specific intrinsic human prosocial motivational values, empathy and
altruism. Unlike that of Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1994), Batson’s
research does not consider the other intrinsic human motivational values.
Yet, like Rokeach and Schwartz, Batson suggests that human values have
both instrumental and terminal dimensions in regards to personal goals but
uses a different term for terminal goals, which he refers to as ultimate goals
or desired end-states. Batson defines altruism as an internal human motiva-
tion that desires the welfare of others in their everyday lives. Altruism, as a
behavior or motivation, is preceded by empathetic concern, when an indi-
vidual feels for the other, which involves sympathy, compassion or tender-
ness. And, while Batson does not consider the full range of human
motivational values, like Rokeach and Schwartz, Batson does suggest that
altruism has an opposite or competing motivational value, egoism.
Egoism is a motivational state wherein the individual seeks his or her own
welfare without regard for others. Batson (2010) frames the motivational
state of prosocial behavior by suggesting that the prosocial value of empathy
is an instrumental motivational value, with altruism, concern for the welfare
of the other, as an ultimate goal. Alternatively, egoism is an antisocial
prioritization of the self over others. Empathy, altruism and egoism provide
a theoretical map used to identify and understand the prosocial motivation
and emerging leadership behaviors within this research. Specifically, Batson
understands that the chance for prosocial action occurs when a person is
confronted with the real decision point every individual must face, a situa-
tion where a person encounters someone who needs help. The first series of
responses is ego-centered.
For Batson (2010), persons motivated by egotistical concern can either
(1) reduce their amount of empathetic concern, (2) act to avoid punishment
from others or self (guilt) or (3) act to help the person in order to receive a
reward. Individuals able to act from pure empathy are acting altruistically.
But, if individuals respond to reward, act to avoid punishment or abate their
empathetic response, they are acting out of egotistical alternatives. Acting
egotistically may mean that the individuals’ behavior results in extending
welfare to someone in need, but such generosity may, in fact, actually be
motivated by egotistical concerns, having self-welfare as its ultimate goal.
Specifically, if an individual helps another person in order to gain a personal
reward or to avoid punishment, his or her ultimate goal is self-welfare.
Alternatively, if a person is confronted with and may face punishment or if
he or she risks personal rewards, and acts to care for the other, that person is
acting altruistically and thus prosocially. Thus, this theoretical model
explains the aforementioned utility leadership, provides insight into
pseudo-transformational leadership and provides a theoretical map to
Awareness of a
Reacon to Instramental
situaon of Ulmate goal
empathy goal
need
Abate emphetic
concern
Personal or social
reward or Reward gained or
punishment Care for others given, punishment aoivded,
anknowledged if no to reach ultimate goal welfare of self.
Empathy aroused
help is given
Emphatetic conern
and corresponding Care for others
action deemed given, welfare of
necessary, disgregard others
punishment or reward
Fig. 3.2 Comparison of altruism to egoism (Adapted from Batson and Shaw
1991)
show how leaders can be engaged in what is deemed as good or ethical

behaviors but still treat people as objects. See Fig. 3.2.
The centrality of empathy is supported by other academic research fields
beyond that of prosocial psychology. Neuroscience research indicates that
empathetic concern is hardwired into the human brain. The biological
component of the brain responsible for empathetic response has been
labeled mirror neurons, which enable individuals to share emotions, expe-
riences, needs and goals. Multiple researchers suggested that the empathetic
response within humans is automatic and nonconscious (Decety and Jack-
son 2004; Lieberman et al. 2002; Preston and de Waal 2002). The mirror
neuron allows humans to feel and affect, when they see another individual in
their joy, boredom or, in the case of prosocial action, their need (Avenanti
et al. 2005; Iacoboni 2009; Rizzolatti and Sinigaglia 2008). These empa-
thetic responses go beyond simple empathy of intrapersonal feeling and
make observing individuals neurologically sense another’s motor or ambu-
latory response, meaning that individuals empathize to such an extent that
their brains and their corresponding physiology believe that the same event
is happening to them (although experientially to a lesser degree) (Wicker
et al. 2003).
CONNECTING PROSOCIAL VALUES TO LEADERSHIP THEORIES 53
This empathetic capacity between the individual agent and the surround-
ing individuals, or those in their social environment, is also important for the
development of the sense of self-identity (Iacoboni 2009), which is
addressed in Chap. 5 and following. The brain, through the use of mirror
neurons, enables individuals to develop their social lives as humans and,
alternatively, a lack of empathy within the individuals is potentially an
indicator of mental or neurological disorders (Farrow and Woodruff
2007). Thus, empathy as an intrinsic human motivator in prosocial behavior
has biological support for the naturalistic tradition of moral realism, since
empathy and altruism are posited to be grounded in the universal features or
characteristics of humanity.
CONNECTING PROSOCIAL VALUES TO LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Therefore, when prosocial leaders are confronted by another’s needs and
have an automatic empathetic response, they address another’s need,
responding altruistically without consciously arousing their empathetic
response, considering a reward, or fearing punishment (Ewest 2015). One
such leader is Nelson Mandela, who was born in 1918 in a racially segre-
gated South Africa. Mandela spent his life fighting for the rights of
South African Blacks, democracy and the elimination of poverty. Mandela
spent 27 years of his life in prison because of his activism, demonstrating
that he was willing to give up his own personal interests and to disregard
punishment, all for the sake of others. Eventually Mandela was freed, was
awarded the Nobel Prize and was later elected president of South Africa, but
these rewards could not have been foreseen. When asked what leadership
meant to him, Mandela responded, “Real leaders must be ready to sacrifice
all for the freedom of their people” (Burford 2014, p. 4). Leaders such as
Mandela are motivated not by allegiance to external normative rules but by
internal commitments that are part of their interpersonal values, which
dictate their normative leadership behaviors and act in ways to resolve the
question, “What is the benefit of my actions?”
While the majority of ethical leadership theories fall within the action
category of normative ethical theory, at the same time they tacitly support or
attest to the existence of the values theory category of normative ethical
theory, since the behaviors are described as or identified to be components
of prosocial behavior: empathy and altruism. Prosocial values theory’s
understanding of the role of instrumental and terminal goals when applied

to leadership theory offers a dynamic model for the analysis of human
leadership behavior, allowing leadership theorists who are concerned with
ethical/moral behavior, motivational states and interpersonal development
a means of assessment. Using prosocial values as an evaluative frame for
leadership is not completely new; it has been considered by various
researchers (De Cremer et al. 2009; Ewest 2015b; Hannah et al. 2011;
Tonkin 2013; Michie and Gooty 2005; Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010).
A brief survey of the ethical leadership theories in Chap. 2, demonstrated the
absence of a connection between leadership and classical ethical theories, but
here, a survey of the same leadership theories will demonstrate the presence of
the prosocial values of empathy and altruism. Specifically, the survey of the
same leadership theories will demonstrate the presence of the ultimate or
terminal goal (value) of others-directed behavior, or altruism, with the parallel
attribution to empathy, an instrumental value.
Transformational leadership, as it was originally conceptualized, described a
leader who put the values of citizenship and the public interest into practice.
Sosik et al. (2009) argued that altruism is an integral aspect of many forms of
leadership, but, most specifically, it is found in TL, since TL behaviors are
intended to be others-directed. A number of leadership scholars also have
argued that altruism is an integral part of TL because the behaviors associated
with the theory are others-directed, but more importantly the leaders must
subvert their own private interests (Avolio and Locke 2002; Brown and Trevi~no
2006; Grant 2012; Hannah et al. 2011; Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010). Empa-
thy also is indicated as important for a TL leader who engages in the mentoring
process (Bass 1985), although it is not clearly depicted as a specific motivator in
others-directed behavior leading to the welfare of others (altruism). Barbuto
and Burbach (2006) found a statistically significant relationship between empa-
thetic concern and TL behaviors.
In previously published research I (Ewest 2015b) have also found cor-
relations between TL behaviors as posited by Kouzes and Posner (1987)
and prosocial values as indicated by Starrett’s (1996) Global Socially
Responsibly Inventory. The first TL behavior associated with prosocial
values, enabling others to act, happens when leaders empower those around
them and build shared power through trust, which creates equity among a
community. Trust, being rooted in empathy, is an others-directed value
(Beirhoff 2002; Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010). The second TL behavior that
also had a high association with prosocial behavior was inspiring a shared
vision, which is a behavior that has as its goal a collective group vision in the
CONNECTING PROSOCIAL VALUES TO LEADERSHIP THEORIES 55
best interest of all parties. Again, prosocial behavior demands harmony with
others in thought and action towards a goal that is future-oriented (Beirhoff
et al. 1991; Hastings et al. 2000; Omoto and Snyder 1995).
Authentic leadership as defined by Avolio et al. (2004) describes leaders
who “are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by
others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives,
knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and
who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character”
(p. 4). The suggestion is that AL leaders’ awareness, or their understanding of
those around them, allows for the development of authentic relationships.
Dasborough and Ashkanasy (2002) argue that empathy plays a key role in
authentic relationships and that empathetic feelings motivate leaders to behave
ethically and to become true, as opposed to pseudo-transformational, leaders.
Luthans and Avolio (2003) argue for the same perspective, suggesting that
positive emotions (e.g., empathy) are crucial to AL development. George
(2010) offers another popularized, less academic, version of AL in his book
True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership. In this book George echoes
many of the themes found in SL, suggesting that AL is others-directed. Finally,
the research of Brown and Trevi~no (2006) has also indicated the presence of
and importance of altruism within authentic leadership.
The SCM of leadership development is based in part on TL theory. The
SCM leader is one who acts to create positive change on behalf of others.
Such leadership is collaborative, is a process inclusive to all people, is values-
based and centers on community involvement. The SCM leader looks for
root causes of social problems and, to solve these problems, seeks collabo-
rative solutions through service with communities and not to communities
(Morton 1995; Strain 2007). Leadership in the SCM model is not a series of
leadership behaviors but a process involving collaborative relations that
leads to collective action grounded in the shared values of people who
work together to effect positive change (Astin and Astin 2000; Bonous-
Hammarth 2001; HERI 1996). The action of sharing values would be
illustrative of prosocial motivations.
Ethical leadership is grounded in social learning theory and draws again
from the literature of TL and AL, to propose that certain moral values such
as honestly, trust, fairness, openness and consideration of the other are
fundamental. Brown and Trevi~no’s (2006) research has also indicated the
presence of altruism within ethical leadership. The goal of EL is to inspire
ethical behavior in followers, and to do so these leaders must focus their
behaviors towards the well-being and development of their followers
(Brown et al. 2005).
Servant leadership identifies the SL leader as a person who chooses

leadership because he or she wishes to serve others (Greenleaf 2002). The
relationship SL leaders have with their followers is built on trust, wherein
the SL leader intends to help individuals grow, becoming healthier, wiser
and more autonomous, and, in the end ,to become SL leaders themselves.
“Servant leadership emphasizes listening, empathy, stewardship, and aware-
ness to develop followers holistically as an end in itself” (Walumbwa et al.
2010). Empathy and its ability to care for and serve others has always been
an intricate part of servant leadership (Russell and Stone 2002). Donia et al.
(2016) conducted research to determine the moderating role prosocial
motivational orientation has between subordinates and SL leaders, and
found positive impacts on job satisfaction.
Spiritual leadership incorporates and extends transformation and charis-
matic theories as well as the values-based leadership theories of AL and
servant leadership. Spiritual leadership incorporates others-directed behav-
ior because it inspires workers through hope and faith in a vision of service
to key stakeholders as well as to the corporate culture, all of which is based
on and motivated by altruistic love. The goal of spiritual leadership is to tap
into the fundamental needs of leaders and followers for their spiritual well-
being, meaning that their life has meaning and makes a difference, and, in
turn, the result is the feeling that they belong (Fry et al. 2005). The research
of Brown and Trevi~no (2006) has also indicated the presence of altruism
within spiritual leadership. See Table 3.3 for a full description.
Table 3.3 Ethical leadership theories’ connection to prosocial values
Leadership theory Ways they incorporate empathy or altruism
Transformational “Transformational leaders, empower, listen and help communities to

leadership become self-sustaining.” (p. 37)
Authentic leadership “Service before self; mission and the organization supersede self-
interest.” (George 2003, p. 12)
Social change “Understanding perspectives other than your own are crucial compo-
nents to participating in community.” (Komives et al. 2009, p. 165)
Ethical leadership “Treating others fairly, honestly and considerately so followers want to
emulate others.” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 119)
Servant leadership “Make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being
served.” (Greenleaf 1997, p. 7)
Spiritual leadership “Altruistic love is a sense of wholeness, harmony and well-being
produced through care, concern, and appreciation for both self and
others.” (Fry 2003, p. 117)
REFERENCES 57
SUMMARY
This chapter began by discussing personal power, antisocial behavior and the
trend within organizations and among their leaders to shift away from
antisocial tendencies. The chapter then considered prosocial behavioral the-
ory, which acts as an anchor for prosocial leadership theory and the prosocial
leadership development process defined in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The
chapter resolved by considering existing connections between ethical leader-
ship theories and prosocial behavior.
The presence of the two prosocial values altruism and empathy seen in
these established positive leadership theories, which are more genuinely
morally centered, suggests the importance of these prosocial values in
moral leadership. The suggestion is that these values are included because
empathy and altruism are essential components of moral behavior and
because these values are genuine to the human condition (e.g., mirror
neurons). Even with the use of prosocial values as a paradigm to better
determine authentically others-directed behavior, there is no indication of
how leaders develop into leaders who genuinely put others’ interests above
their own. Before prosocial leadership development is explored in Chaps. 5,
6, 7, 8, and 9, a broader understanding of leadership development, its
processes and methods, is necessary.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (DSM-5®). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher
education in social change. Battle Creek: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Avenanti, A., Bueti, D., Galati, G., & Aglioti, S. M. (2005). Transcranial magnetic
stimulation highlights the sensorimotor side of empathy for pain. Nature Neu-
roscience, 8(7), 955–960.
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumba, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory
building for veritable sustained performance. Working paper: Gallup Leadership
Institute, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transfor-
mational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,
146(1), 51–64.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of
prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.
Beirhoff, H. W. (2002). Social psychology: A modular course (prosocial behavior).
New York: Psychology Press.
Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2001). Developing social change agents: Leadership devel-
opment for the 1990s and beyond. In S. F. C. L. Outcault (Ed.), Developing
non-heirarchical leadership on campus: Case studies and best practices in higher
education (pp. 34–39). Westport: Greenwood.
Braithwaite, J. (2006). Doing justice intelligently in civil society. Journal of Social
Issues, 62(2), 393–409.
Brown, M. E., & Trevi~no, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future
directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou (p. 57) (trans: Kaufmann, W.). New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
Burford, N. (2014). Decolonizing pedagogy: Critical consciousness and its impact
on schooling for Black students. Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto,
College of Humanities.
Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quar-
terly, 5(1), 5–28.
Chang, A. (2011, August 30). American apparel’s in-house guru shows a lighter side.
Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/30/business/la-fi-
robert-greene-20110726/2
Crosby, L. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gill, J. D. (1990). Organizational structure of values.
Journal of Business Research, 20(2), 123–134.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of
intentionality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5),
615–634.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.
Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100.
REFERENCES 59
Donia, M. B., Raja, U., Panaccio, A., & Wang, Z. (2016). Servant leadership and
employee outcomes: The moderating role of subordinates’ motives. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(5), 722–734.
Erkutlu, H. V., & Chafra, J. (2006). Relationship between leadership power bases
and job stress of subordinates: Example from boutique hotels. Management
Research News, 29(5), 285–297.
Studies, 9(3), 53–54.
Ewest, T. (2015b). The relationship between transformational leadership practices
and global social responsibility. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1), 19–29.
Farrow, T. F., & Woodruff, P. W. (Eds.). (2007). Empathy in mental illness (Vol. 1).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14
(6), 693–727.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army trans-
formation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(5), 835–862.
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting
value. Hoboken: Wiley.
George, B. (2010). True north: Discover your authentic leadership (Vol. 143). San
Francisco: Wiley.
Grant, A. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, Prosoical impact, and
Journal, 55(2), 458–476.
Greene, R. (2000). The 48 laws of power. New York: Penguin.
Greenleaf, R. (1997). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. Essays by Robert K. Greenleaf. Mahwah: Paulist Press.
power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have
moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–
116.
Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the DSM-IV
criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3),
391.
HERI. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook: Version
III. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others.
New York: Macmillan.
Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F., Osteen, L., Owen, J. E., &
Wagner, W. (2009). Leadership identity development: Challenges in applying a
developmental model. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(1), 11–47.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). Leadership challenge: How to get extraordi-
nary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Wiley Press.
Lawrence, J. T., & Beamish, P. W. (Eds.) (2012). Globally responsible leadership:
Managing according to the UN global compact. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Koehler.
Lynskey, D. (2012, December 3). Robert Greene on his 48 laws of power: ‘I’m not
evil – I’m a realist’. The Guardian.
Mahoney, J., & Katz, G. (1976). Value structures and orientation to social institu-
tions. Journal of Psychology, 93(2), 203–215.
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real
leader please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 441–457.
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in
service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32.
Padilla-Walker, L., & Carlo, G. (2015). The study of prosocial behavior: Past,
present and future. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial devel-
opment: A multidimensional approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
REFERENCES 61
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management

Review, 34(2), 29–50.
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2002). The communication of emotions and the
possibility of empathy in animals. In S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss,
& W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in
dialogue (pp. 284–308). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2008). Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share
actions and emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell, R. F., & Gregory Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
23(3), 145–157.
Schwartz, S. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47.
Starrett, R. H. (1996). Assessment of global responsibility. Psychological Reports, 78,
535–554.
Strain, C. R. (2007). Moving like a starfish: Beyond a unilinear model of student
transformation in service learning classes. Journal of College and Character, 8(1),
23–34.
Tonkin, T. (2013). Authentic verses transformational leadership: Assessing their
effectiveness on organizational citizenship behavior of followers. International
Journal of Business and Public Administration, 10(1), 40–61.
Wallimann, I., Tatsis, N. C., & Zito, G. V. (1977). On Max Weber’s definition of
power. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 13(3), 231–235.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural
justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship
behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517.
Weber, M. (2009). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Routledge.
Whitehead, G. (2009). Adolescent leadership development building a case for an
authenticity framework. Educational Management Administration & Leader-
ship, 37(6), 847–872.
Wicker, B., Keysers, C., Plailly, J., Royet, J. P., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2003).
Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling
disgust. Neuron, 40(3), 655–664.
CHAPTER 4
Perspectives on Leadership Development
INTRODUCTION
A 2012 study found that American companies spend almost 14 billion
dollars annually on leadership and development training (O’Leonard and
Loew 2012). Some estimates are much higher, citing the total dollars spent
on learning and development in 2010 as over $171.5 billion (Green and
McGill 2011). Leadership education commands 21 percent of all training
dollars (Bares 2008), making it the largest share of investment in corporate
learning and development. Clearly organizations feel that leadership is
important, and they feel a need to invest in ongoing leadership develop-
ment. Ironically, Avolio (2007) suggests that, despite significant invest-
ment, leadership development is among the least examined areas within
the school of leadership thought.
Leadership development research is typically oriented towards develop-
ing good practices that address organizational goals and does not necessarily
include training for the development of ethical or others-directed behaviors.
And, when leadership development does include ethics, it is normally based
on the action category of normative ethics with the expectation that leaders
obey normative principles. Little or no attention is given to motivation and
antecedents, which almost entirely ignores the consideration of leadership
development as a process (Hannah et al. 2011). Moreover, such training
challenges research findings presented in Chap. 1 suggesting that organiza-
tions good at instilling sustainability practices have a leader or leaders at the

64 4 PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
executive level of management motivated by internal core moral values that

support sustainability.
The result has created an assumption where all that is needed for ade-
quate leadership performance is a clear and rational understanding of the
desired leadership principle. Knowledge alone is sufficient for leaders to
illustrate these principles with their behaviors, and thus this perspective
completely ignores the willingness and ability of the leader derived from
his or her past formative experiences. This tacitly suggests that everyone has
the same ethical willingness (motivations) and capabilities (formative expe-
riences), and disregards antecedents that lead to moral development (or lack
thereof) and to prosocial or antisocial behaviors. Since this condition is
replete within ethical leadership theories, investigation into antecedents is
marginalized and there is scant literature on leadership development and
even less on ethical leadership development. This creates tension because, if,
as suggested in Chap. 1, the world is in need of individuals who consider
themselves global stewards and as such assume leadership roles, it becomes
evident that “how individuals become leaders is a conversation that is
missing” (Quinn and Velsor 2010, p. 11).
This chapter begins by considering the desired capacities of today’s
organizational leaders. This is followed by a survey of leadership develop-
ment methods and by a consideration of both the present state of ethical
leadership development theories that have a process orientation and the
ways in which ethical leadership development has focused on ethical
decision-making models. The chapter resolves by discussing the limitations
in the scope and aims of the present state of the research pertaining to
leadership development.
DESIRED COMPETENCIES FOR DEVELOPING LEADERS

In today’s organizations, effective leadership is commonly viewed as a
central component of organizational success, and because of this belief
organizations are placing an ever-increasing importance on leadership
development (Hernez-Broome and Hughes 2004), which is evidenced by
the significant financial investment mentioned earlier. The goal for many if
not most organizations is to invest in the type of training and development
that enhances or protects human capital (Day 2001; Lepak and Snell 1999).
Development objectives typically involve increasing technical or behavioral
competencies of individually recognized leaders who are high performers or
of nascent leaders who are challenged with engaging in the complex social
DESIRED COMPETENCIES FOR DEVELOPING LEADERS 65
interactions needed to guide numerous followers. But, to be certain, these

development goals seek enhancements that align with organizational strat-
egy primarily targeted at increasing revenue (Hall and Seibert 1992; Day
2001). This condition may explain some of the furor and intensity behind
scholars trying to demonstrate how ethical companies are more strategically
competitive and thus have higher and more sustained earnings, which may
conversely be understood as a validation of ethics’ absence from such
leadership training. One is left to assume that if leadership competencies
do not help the company’s strategic competitiveness they are ignored.
Supporting this assumption, McCauley and Van Velsor (2004) suggest
that most leadership development processes have as an aim protecting
and/or enhancing human capital as the ultimate goal of leadership effec-
tiveness (Murphy and Riggio 2003). The resulting reality is that organiza-
tions train leaders to be effective at improving organizational strategy, and,
if ethical or prosocial behaviors do not directly pertain to or enhance
organizational strategy, there may be little or no development commitment
to ethical or prosocial leadership. McCauley et al. suggest that organizations
engage in leadership development for one of three reasons: performance
improvement, succession management or organizational change. More-
over, since leadership development in organizations concerns itself with
targeted needs within organizational strategy, even if there are ethical,
moral or prosocial elements involved they are generally pitted against larger
organizational objectives.
For example, Day (2001) notes thirteen developmental targets of leader
development, and only one is specifically ethical—trustworthiness; with
regards to leadership development, only three out of ten competencies are
ethical or prosocial in orientation—empathy, trust and respect. The strong
desire for inclusion of ethics or prosocial values within leadership develop-
ment is valid, since marginalization of ethical or prosocial competencies may
ultimately jeopardize organizational goals. Since these ethical and prosocial
values are foundational to building social capital, their absence may poten-
tially jeopardize the foundational nature of relationships applying to cus-
tomer satisfaction, negotiation and employee productivity (Galli and
Müller-Stewens 2012; Wilfred and Paulus 1994), all of which are based
largely on mutual trust and respect (Brower et al. 2000).
Similar results are indicated when considering the research on global
leadership development competencies. Again, the role of ethics or, as is
more germane to this book, prosocial values is less of a priority than other
leadership capacities. Bird (2013) surveyed the existing global leadership
literature and found over twenty authors who recommended 160 content
domain areas regarded as necessary for global leadership competencies,
segmenting these competencies into three areas: business and organiza-
tional acumen, managing people and relationships and managing the self.
Out of the 160 global leadership capacities there are only six competencies
that could be considered moral, ethical or prosocial: trust (Bird 2013;
Rosen 2000), humility (Rosen 2000), honesty (McCall and Hollenbeck
2002), respect (Bueno and Tubbs 2004), empathy (Jokinen 2005) and
integrity (McCall and Hollenbeck 2002; Mendenhall and Osland 2002).
Yet, whatever the focus or targets of leadership development, there are
commonly used methods for cultivating leaders to reach various intraper-
sonal, interpersonal organizational leader or leadership objectives, and these
methods further demonstrate a focus on targeted needs within an organi-
zation’s strategy.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT METHODS

A survey of leadership development methods demonstrates a marginalized
role for ethical or prosocial leadership development, since only a few of the
methods used to develop leaders concern themselves with methods, designs
or targets pertaining to interpersonal development. Three reviews of lead-
ership development methods by McMauley et al. (2010), Day (2001) and
Hernez-Broome and Hughes (2004) found a total of eight common
methods for developing leaders. These eight include 360-degree feedback,
feedback programs, coaching, mentoring, job assignments, action learning,
networks and self-development.
None of these methods are particularly suited to developing specific
leadership competencies, and they are used instrumentally and at the
designer’s discretion. Only four of the development methods are, according
to their definitions, more interpersonal and thus better suited to personal
ethical/prosocial leadership development. See Table 4.1 for full details. Few
leadership development methods pay attention to research that understands
the moral, social, or intellectual development process. While these develop-
ment methods are widely used within industry, their effectiveness in
reaching leadership objectives remains in question (Davis 2015). Moreover,
what is important to note is that leadership development methods are not
equivalent to the leadership development processes wherein specific devel-
opmental steps are recognized and there is a clear depiction of the leader’s
development process from nascent to mature.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT METHODS 67
Table 4.1 Methods of leadership development
Author’s Day (2001) McMauley et al. (2010) Hernez-Broome and

research on Hughes (2004)
methods of
leadership
development
Better suited for ethical/personal development

360-degree 360-degree feedback: Feedback processes: 360 Feedback to assess
feedback Multi-source rating of Performance appraisal, leadership competencies
performance, organized 360-degree feedback
and presented to an and assessment centers
individual
Feedback Feedback programs:
programs University programs,
skill training, feedback-
intensive programs and
personal growth
programs
Coaching Coaching: Practical, Developmental relation- Coaching practical,
goal-focused form of ships: professional goal-focused forms of
one-on-one learning coaches one-on-one learning
and, ideally, behavioral
change
Mentoring Mentoring: Advising Mentors, peer learning Mentoring: a commit-
developmental relation- partners ted, long-term relation-
ship, usually with a more ship in which a senior
senior manager person supports the
personal and profes-
sional development of a
junior person
Better suited for general professional or organizational leadership development
Job Job assignments: Developmental assign- Challenging job
assignments Providing “stretch” ments: Job moves, job assignments
assignments in terms of rotations, expanded
role, function or work responsibilities,
geography temporary assignments
and leadership roles
outside work
Action Action learning: Project- Action learning projects Action learning is a set
learning based learning directed of organizational devel-
at important business opment practices in
problems which important real-
time organizational
problems are tackled
(continued )
Table 4.1 (continued)
Author’s Day (2001) McMauley et al. (2010) Hernez-Broome and

research on Hughes (2004)
methods of
leadership
development
Networks Networks: Connecting Social identity networks Teams, challenges of

to others in different and communities of leading teams
functions and areas practice
Self- Self-development activi-
development ties: Reading, speakers
and colloquia, profes-
sional conferences, fire-
side chats and all-staff
meetings
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

While there are only a few theories with an existing leadership development
process, there are even fewer that are empirically verified (Murphy and
Riggio 2003). Numerous leadership theories depict binary development
levels, but these theories only identify leaders as either nascent or mature,
considering specifically the leader’s adherence to principles as displayed in
behavioral practices of proposed leadership theory. However, only a few
leadership theories have models depicting specific levels or stages of growth,
have an ethical or prosocial component and provide a process whereby the
individual knows how a leader moves from one level or stage of develop-
ment to the next. Again, as with leadership development methods, few
leadership development processes pay attention to existing research or
seek to develop methods in order to understand the ethical (moral), social
or intellectual development process within individual leaders (Murphy and
Riggio 2003).
Again, the isolation of leadership ethics within the normative action
ethical category, as previously mentioned, maintains that leadership devel-
opment is based on exact moral knowledge of ethical principles, and the
distillation of such principles and the illustration of corresponding behaviors
in the leader are then generally the developmental goals (though they are
not based on development of personal character as in virtue theory or on the
development of internal values as in prosocial behavior).
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 69
Ethical leadership theories, or any leadership theory, may even regard

itself as developmental, but if the theory is normative ethics action-based, it
is likely to suggest that the leader has only to understand and practice the
prescribed behaviors to move from a nascent performance level to a more
mature level, disregarding antecedents, moderating effects of the work-
place, and larger intrapersonal and interpersonal values-centered goals—
the result is what I regarded as a utility leader. These adherence models of
leadership development do not outline processes whereby a leader has
moved or can move from one level to the next, and simply disregard
motivations, cathartic experiences, personal interactions and a wealth of
moral learning and adult development research—and a myriad of other
human dynamics.
Fiedler (1996) saw the need for multidimensional constructs early on,
suggesting that research surrounding leadership development is a highly
contextual construct which emerges between exchanges through the inter-
actions of followers, leaders and situations. Yet even while leadership devel-
opment has been rightly regarded by some as a multilevel development
process that is highly contextual (Avolio 2007; Murphy and Riggio 2003),
little ethical leadership development has addressed this as a reality. Murphy
and Riggio (2003) suggest that the levels of the development process must
include individual development, relational development and organizational
systems development. Following the advice of Murphy and Riggio, this
book has proposed a macro level adherence model or process, as proposed
in Chap. 1, deeming it the stewardship model, and also proposes an
individual process in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the prosocial leadership
development process, and an organizational perspective in Chap. 10.
While there is little research on leadership development according to a
step-by-step process, with each step defined by an accompanying develop-
mental description, there are a few good examples to consider. Murphy and
Riggio (2003) provide a multilevel, multidimensional leadership develop-
ment process with targets and steps for various levels of individual, dyad/
group and organizational development. Their proposed leadership devel-
opment process intends to broaden the leadership conversation beyond the
often over-emphasized intrapersonal development and inculcate interper-
sonal elements of relationships and organizations. However, this process is
not strictly linear and thus may not fit clearly into a process model.
Tichy (2009) has also developed a well-known leadership development
model called the virtuous teaching cycle, wherein the leader takes the role of
a teacher who has a particular point of view. This “point of view” allows
leaders to instruct others on the importance of making values-based deci-

sions, teaching followers to say “yes” or “no” based on what their life
experiences have taught them.
While not specifically intended to be an ethical leadership development
model, Avolio (1999) presents a four-stage leadership development process,
which is intended to develop individual capacity within the full-range
leadership model. The four steps are largely centered on intrapersonal
development but do also ask leaders to collaborate with others as a resource
for development. The outcome of the model is a full-range leadership
model, and the development of the leader is rooted in mutual trust, a
recognized ethical value. The steps include awareness, application, adoption
and advancement/achievement.
Berkovich (2014) depicts four attributional presuppositions, referred to
as pillars, which are required to develop authentic leadership through
genuine dialogue, essential as a catalyst in developing authentic leaders
(Luthans et al. 2006). Again, this process is not strictly linear and thus
may not fit clearly into a process model. The first three pillars are inclusion,
candor and presentness. The final of the four pillars, confirmation, allows for
each participant to be valued as a human being, an ethical value. When
participants commit to the dialogue process they listen attentively, allowing
them to be present in the moment of life and respond to what is happening
with others and thus mutually create a joint future (p. 250).
Marsh’s (2013) qualitative research endeavored to clarify and expand the
concept of ethical leadership, resulting in a framework for ethical leadership
that illuminates important aspects of how leaders develop a values perspec-
tive to be used in ethical decision-making. This framework resulted in a
corresponding model depicting how these ethical perspectives in leaders are
developed. The framework was developed based on research conducted on
28 business leaders who participated, revealing four values they considered
vital for their personal practice of ethical leadership. These four values are
mindfulness, the individual’s awareness of his or her present experience;
engagement, which involves embracing diversity, cultivating relationships,
terminating some relationships and encouragement of risk-taking; authen-
ticity, which is the exercise of personal integrity, self-knowledge and being
the author of one’s own life; and, finally, sustainment, which is living with
hope and having a holistic approach to work and life (Ruedy and Schweitzer
2010). From further examination of these leaders it became apparent that
certain formative elements were commonly held. These included
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 71
experiences with trauma, experiences with a supportive community and

encounters with difference—all mutually supportive formative elements.
Fry and Nisiewicz (2013) use the Twelve-Step recovery process, popu-
larized by Alcoholics Anonymous, as a guide in developing spiritual leader-
ship. Step one is admitting that we are powerless over our self-centeredness
and that our lives are unmanageable. Step two is believing that a power
greater than ourselves can restore us to sanity. Step three is turning our wills
and lives over to God. Step four is taking a fearless moral inventory. Step five
is admitting to others our wrongs. Step six is having God remove all our
defects. Step seven is submitting to God to remove our shortcomings. Step
eight involves making a list of all the persons that have been harmed. Step
nine is making amends with people whenever possible. Step ten is continu-
ing our personal inventories and making corresponding immediate admis-
sions of guilt. Step eleven involves prayer and meditation to improve our
conscious connection with God. The final step, step twelve, includes rec-
ognizing the personal transformation effected by the previous eleven steps
and making a commitment to carry that message in all of our affairs. The
goal of this development process is to create leadership rooted in
altruistic love.
The SCM was grounded in Burns’ (1978) theory of TL and the work of a
few notable others (e.g. Rost 1991). The SCM is a values-centered
approach, wherein the values of the group (collaboration), individuals
(self-knowledge) and community (service) all work together (Komives
and Wagner 2016). The three values centers have corresponding compo-
nents as an interrelated process to create social change: consciousness of self
(individual), collaboration with common purpose (group) and citizenship
(community). The goal of this model is to create leaders who can create
positive social change.
Finally, Scharmer (2009) presents a leadership development process
wherein leaders open their minds, listen and are able to sense and see
what is in the present to better understand the wisdom in the moment
and co-create the results present in the community’s awareness. These
development models and leadership process include unconditional love
(altruism).
Table 4.2 delineates the various components of these leadership devel-
opment processes; orientation regarding individual, relational or organiza-
tional use, steps in process, factors that determine growth of the leader,
targeted outcomes and ethical or prosocial elements are present in the
theories. It should be noted that, while all of the leadership theories have
Table 4.2 Leadership development processes’ prosocial elements
72
Authors Established Individual, Steps in process Factors determine growth Outcomes of Includes ethical, moral
4
leadership relational, development or prosocial as an

theory organizational, antecedent or objective
global systems
Avolio Full range Individual, Awareness; application; Knowledge of model, Acquisition of full Yes, trust and respect
(1999) leadership relational and adoption; advancement/ challenge to self-image, range leadership
organizational achievement self-examination, others and corresponding
reinforcement leadership traits
Berkovich Authentic Individual Inclusion; candor; Genuine dialogue Self-actualization, Yes, empathy, care,
(2014) leadership presentness; confirmation as defined within respect
model
Fry and Spiritual Individual, Twelve-step alcoholics Twelve-step alcoholics Acquisition of Yes, character checklist
Nisiewicz leadership relational, anonymous process anonymous process personal spiritual specific to step two, and
(2013) organizational leadership compassion and hon-
esty throughout process
Komives Social Individual, Collaboration with com- Group, individual and Developing into Yes, care, service and
and change relational mon purpose, community values leaders who can responsibility
Wagner model of (community) controversy with bring social
(2016) leadership civility; citizenship and change
PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
consciousness of self-
congruence commitment
Marsh Ethical Individual, Mindfulness; engagement; Experiences with trauma, Attainment of Yes, personal integrity,
(2013) leadership relational, authenticity and experiences with support- ethical leadership, redemptive power of
organizational sustainment ive community and leading ethically, love for others
encounters with with care for
difference others
Scharmer Theory U Individual, Open mind, open heart, Leaders who do interior Quality results in Yes, unconditional
(2009) relational, open will (seeing, sensing, work confronting the any kind of social impersonal love
organizational letting go, letting come, voice of judgment, criti- system
crystallizing and cism and fear
prototyping)
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING MODELS 73
ethical or moral components, only two—spiritual leadership (Fry and

Nisiewicz 2013) and ethical leadership (Marsh 2013)—have ethics or
prosocial values as an outcome, indicating a lack of ethics or prosocial values
within leadership development models. Alternatively, the best-known and
most widely used processes for ethical leadership development are ethical
decision-making models.
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING MODELS

Again, the use of the normative ethics action category emphasizes that the
determinant of a good leader is adherence to ethical principles that are
rationally deduced and then committed to and correspondingly demon-
strated in specific leadership behaviors. While not directly connected to
leadership, the development process that has the best alignment with the
normative ethical action category is found in ethical decision-making
models. Ethical decision-making models have typically and most frequently
been appended to ethical leadership models as a means to foster ethical
leader competencies. The predominant use of the normative ethical action
category in leadership studies assumes that individuals are, or need to be,
rational agents when engaging in ethical decisions (De Cremer et al. 2009;
Turner et al. 2002).
While the singular use of this normative category is myopic and reduc-
tionist since it only addresses one of the normative ethical categories,
ignores other aforementioned motivations for ethical behavior (e.g., reli-
gion, emotions) and circumvents moral development, it is nonetheless
synchronous with the governing economic assumption that human
decision-making is rational (Etzioni 1991; Ulrich 2002). This ongoing
assumption has produced two phenomena. Ulrich (2002) identifies the
first, suggesting that economics, individuals and the organizations they
lead are assumed to be unlike the rest of life because their reality is based
on pure and autonomous rational business transactions, where behavior is
distinct from other types of behavior and business organizations are distinct
from other organizations (since the primary goal for most business organi-
zations is profit). The second phenomenon flows out of the first, wherein
ethical training is best done by developing rational decision-makers using a
prescriptive normative ethical decision-making approach and process (Rest
et al. 1999; Trevino and Weaver 1994; Weaver 2001).
The central role of reason is further demonstrated by examining ethical
decision-making or ethical development models or processes, which all
Table 4.3 Ethical decision-making models and proposed abilities
Ethical decision-making model Rational abilities
Kidder’s (1995) model Gather information and identify problems

Nash’s (2009) twelve Gather information and identify problems
questions
The SAD Formula (Day 2005) Critical thinking to accurately analyze and evaluate
Cooper’s 2012 Active Process Considering moral rules and their corresponding conse-
Model quences and alternatives to actions
Kohlberg’s Moral Develop- Personal understanding of right and wrong and the need for
ment Model (1973) a functioning society
contend for a central and dominant role for reason and cognition as primary
to appropriate ethical outcomes (Cooper 2012; Day 2001; Kidder 1995;
Nash 2009). For example, rational abilities in these models stress informa-
tion gathering (Kidder 1995; Nash 2009), critical thinking (Day 2005),
consideration of moral rules (Cooper 2012) and moral rules’ importance in
society (Kohlberg 1973). See Table 4.3.
Again, all of these ethical decisions-making models emphasize ethical
decision-making as a rational choice, indicating that if a person will know
the good, they will do the good. Thus, the goal for the normative ethical
model is to capitalize on the assumption that people in organizations are to
be rational in regards to ethical actions in the marketplace (weighing costs
versus benefits) and when making ethical decisions (Etzioni 1991). Simply,
the goal here is to develop sound rational ethical decision processes to
ensure correct ethical behavior in those who lead. The misguided assump-
tion is that all individuals are presently capable of leadership in their present
state regardless of their formative antecedents or interpersonal values and
motivations, and that reason is the best source of ethics. Again, it suggests
that people simply have to adhere to the normative rules or codes of
behavior and they will be competent leaders. But the distance between
where nascent leaders are and where and how they get to be mature leaders
is left up to the emerging leader to navigate. The answer most existing
ethical leadership models suggest is to make sound rational choices.
Again, as mentioned in Chap. 2, multiple issues arise, such as weak or
moderate evidence associating moral reasoning and moral action or behav-
ior (Blasi 1983; Hoffman 2000; Walker 2004) and a growing recognition of
a multiplicity of moral motivators (Eisenberg 1986; Haidt 2001; Cowan
2005; Vitell 2009). Specifically, the normative ethical action theory is
SUMMARY 75
complemented by neoclassical economics’ rational man and thus is largely

committed to developing cognitive moral decision-making. Yet, while cog-
nition is endemic within ethics and prosocial behavior, it is not necessarily
seminal in regards to ethical motivation and therefore may only represent a
truncated and not central role in ethical decision-making or in the ethical
leadership development process.
SUMMARY
This chapter considered the desired capacities of today’s leaders within
organizations, surveyed leadership development methods, considered the
present state of ethical leadership development theories that have a process
orientation, and considered how ethical leadership development has
focused on ethical decision-making models. The chapter resolved by
discussing the limitations in the scope and aims of the present state of ethical
leadership development research.
To be certain, the focus on the action category of normative ethics
creates an ethos where antecedents and corresponding motivations are
overlooked or simply ignored. Sources, such as religious texts, intuitive
reasoning, cultural exchanges and emotions that can all contribute to ethical
theories, ethical decision-making and, in turn, to the formulation of ethics
and that act as antecedents within the individual or person, have been
largely ignored (Ciulla 2001; Johnson 2013; Kanungo 2001; Trevino
et al. 2003). More importantly, few, if any, leadership theories have
addressed antecedents to leadership “that give rise to ethical behavior”
(Hannah et al. 2011, p. 555). The intrinsic motivations for practicing
certain ethical leadership traits, personal devotion to the “good”, and
personal relationships with the “good” or “higher self” (discussed in
Chap. 1), are simply and sadly missing from the discussion.
When ethical leadership is confined to normative ethical action theory, a
leader can demonstrate a behavior that is perceived as agreeing with ethical
leadership principles and can be instantly deemed an ethical leader, as long
as the motivations instrumental in determining if the leader is self-serving or
others-serving are ignored. This may come from assumptions followers have
about leaders, namely that if leaders adhere to and display certain normative
principles, they are good leaders and therefore possess good character, and
good character alone is sufficient for leadership. The result is that many fall
victim to observer bias, projecting onto leaders they admire aspects of virtue
which they may or may not possess (Levine and Boaks 2014) and offering
their allegiance.
If ethical leadership discussions are to be realistic and account for the
leader/follower exchange, follower perception and moral development,
then ethical leadership theory must also consider how authentic prosocial
behaviors are developed within leaders and act as motivators. But today’s
organizations’ desired competencies, leadership development methods and
leadership development processes currently have little to do with ethics and
their antecedents. The prosocial leadership development process described
in the chapters that follow offers an alternative leadership development
process to address many of the issues raised in the preceding chapters.
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organi-
zations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-
building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25.
Bares, A. (2008). Companies spend an average of $1202 per employee on training.
(Web blog). Retrieved from http://compforce.typepad.com/compensation_fo
rce/2008/02/companies-spend.html
Berkovich, I. (2014). Between person and person: Dialogical pedagogy in authentic
leadership development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2),
245–264.
Bird, A. (2013). Mapping the content domain of global leadership competencies. In
Global leadership: Research, practice, and development (2nd ed., pp. 80–96). New
York: Routledge.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational
leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(2), 227–250.
Bueno, C. M., & Tubbs, S. L. (2004). Identifying global leadership competencies:
An exploratory study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 80–87.
Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the
administrative role. San Francisco: Wiley.
REFERENCES 77
Cowan, D. (2005). Translating spiritual intelligence into leadership competencies.

Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion., 2(1), 1–33.
Davis, S. (2015). Developing global-minded leaders to drive high performance. New
York: American Management Association.
Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
Day, L. (2005). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies. Belmont:
Cengage Learning/Wadsworth Publishing.
Erlbaum.
Etzioni, A. (1991). Reflections on teaching of business ethics. Business Ethics Quar-
terly, 1(04), 355–365.
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the
future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 241–250.
Fry, L., & Nisiewicz, M. (2013). Maximizing the triple bottom line through spiritual
leadership. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Galli, E. B., & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leader-
ship development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 176–201.
Green, M., & McGill, E. (2011). The 2011 state of the industry: Increased commit-
ment to workplace learning. T þ D. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/TD/
Archives/2011/Nov/Free/Nov_11_Feature_State_of_the_Industry.htm
Hall, D. T., & Seibert, K. W. (1992). Strategic management development: Linking
organizational strategy, succession planning, and managerial learning. In D. H.
Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development. Theory and practice
(pp. 255–275). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past,
present, and future. People and Strategy, 27(1), 24.
shadow. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(3), 199–216.

Kidder, R. M. (1995). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of
ethical living. New York: Fireside.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral
judgment. The Journal of Philosophy, 630–646.
Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. (2016). Leadership for a better world: Understanding
the social change model of leadership development. Wiley.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a
theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management
Review, 24(1), 31–48.
Luthans, F., Norman, S., & Hughes, L. (2006). Authentic leadership: A new
approach for a new time. In Inspiring leaders (pp. 84–104). London: Routledge.
Marsh, C. (2013). Business executives’ perceptions of ethical leadership and its
development. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 565–582.
McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons
of international experience. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The center for creative leadership
handbook of leadership development (Vol. 29). New York: Wiley.
Mendenhall, M., & Osland, J. (2002). Mapping the terrain of the global leadership
construct (p. 29). San Juan: Academy of International Business.
Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). The future of leadership development.
Hove: Psychology Press.
Nash, L. L. (2009). Ethics without the sermon. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
O’Leonard, K., & Loew, L. (2012). Leadership development fact book 2012:
Benchmarks and trends in US leadership development. Bersin by Deloitte
(on-line), available at: www. bersin.com/Store/details.aspx
Quinn, L., & Van Velsor, E. (2010). Developing globally responsible leadership. The
center of creative leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). A neo-Kohlbergian
approach: The DIT and schema theory. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4),
291–324.
Rosen, R. H. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on business leadership and national
cultures. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Prager.
Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindful-
ness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 73–87.
REFERENCES 79
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Tichy, N. M. (2009). The cycle of leadership. New York: Harper Collins.
Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (1994). Business ethics/business ethics: One field
or two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 113–128.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Trans-
formational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
304–311.
Ulrich, P. (2002). Ethics and economics. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.), Ethics in the economy.
Hand paper of business ethics. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Weaver, G. (2001). Ethics programs in global businesses: Culture’s role in managing
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 3–15.
Wilfred, H., & Paulus, J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as a meaning
making in a community of practice, issues and observations. Center for Creative
Leadership, 21. https://www.amazon.com/Making-Common-Sense-Leadership-
Meaning-Making/dp/0912879971/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=149
9831139&sr=1-1&keywords=Making+Common+Sense%3A+Leadership+as+
Meaning-making+in+a+Community+of+Practice
CHAPTER 5
The Prosocial Leadership Development

Process
INTRODUCTION
Up to this point, this book has endeavored to demonstrate the need for an
ethical leadership theory centered on others-directed or prosocial values by
using prosocial behavioral psychology as a theoretical anchor and by
establishing a contextual framework in which this new theory can both
expand the existing ethical leadership conversation and also address existing
gaps in these theories. Chapter 1 set the context by considering organiza-
tional initiatives (e.g., PRME) to raise up global stewards who take respon-
sibility for their own development and for their organizations’ impacts. But,
for these leaders to be effective, they must also be personally devoted to the
good if they are to instill ethical or prosocial elements in the operation of
their organizations (Russell and Lipsky 2008).
In Chap. 2, ethical leadership theories were reviewed, including chal-
lenges in the alignment of classical philosophical ethical theories (Ciulla
2005) and leadership theories, and, finally, in the problematic overuse of
normative ethical action theory by ethical leadership theories. The intent of
Chap. 2 was not only to provide a context for including a new complement
to existing leadership theories—prosocial leadership theory—but also to
argue for the expansion and discussion of ethical considerations to include
other normative ethical categories besides that of action.
Chapter 3 introduced prosocial behavioral research, specifically the work
of Schwartz (1994) and Batson (2010), which is instrumental in identifying
how two human values, empathy and altruism, act as motivators and how

82 5 THE PROSOCIAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
objectified goals direct human behavior. This chapter also reviewed the
existing possible evidence of prosocial values within existing ethical leader-
ship theories. This chapter resolved by suggesting that the majority of
ethical leadership theories are not developmental, in part because of the
limitations of the use of normative ethical action theory.
Chapter 4 then surveyed the use of developmental leadership practices
and methods, demonstrating limitations of the development of and corre-
spondence with organizational practice regarding prosocial values. Again,
the chapter resolved by suggesting the limitations of leadership develop-
ment because of the use of normative ethical action theory.
Alternatively, prosocial leadership, which is anchored within the values
category of normative ethical theory within the levels of moral discourse,
offers an alternative to identify others-directed leadership behavior. More-
over, since prosocial leadership focuses on two intrinsic human motivational
values, the theory provides a means to include and possibly understand
personal motivation or devotion, which leads to altruistic acts. Moreover,
since prosocial leadership focuses on what is an internal universal motiva-
tional human condition, it allows for the inclusion and possible understand-
ing of a moral developmental process. However, as stated in Chap. 1, the
examination of motivation may be of little practical concern for some
people, since some would suggest that it does not matter what the motiva-
tion is of those who help as long as they help those in need. This may very
well be true; however, if we want to know when to expect help, where or
from which individual help can be expected, and the effectiveness and
sustainably of help, then motivations do indeed matter (Batson 2010,
p. 18).
This chapter provides an overview of the research question guiding the
qualitative research on prosocial leadership, an orientation to the partici-
pants, data and procedure (more information is found in Appendices 1 and
3) and a discussion of the results of the grounded theory model used in this
research. Specifically, the methodology resulted in the emergence of four
themes; each theme is discussed and, alongside this discussion, the process
of development or steps associated with the theme, or stage, are also
discussed. The chapter resolves by presenting an overview of supporting
literature, which is also included in the following chapters, and a summary
and reflection.
THE PARTICIPANTS, DATA AND PROCEDURE 83
RESEARCH QUESTION
Research has demonstrated that prosocial values are correlated with certain
established leadership theories as well as with prescribed leadership behav-
iors from established leadership theories (De Cremer et al. 2009; Ewest
2015a; Hannah et al. 2011; Tonkin 2013; Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010).
Yet, how an individual develops as a leader with prosocial values has been
left unexplored. To this end, this research has been guided by the question,
What are the characteristics and developmental process associated with individ-
uals whose leadership behaviors are prosocial, motivated by empathy and
resulting in altruistic action?
THE PARTICIPANTS, DATA AND PROCEDURE

To address this question, participants were selected who were nascent in
their development, as demonstrated by their enrollment in an undergradu-
ate leadership development program. Those enrolled in the program were
asked to complete five courses and engage in a service-learning component.
After completion of the program, students were asked to reflect on the
aspects of their leadership development experience that they regarded as
personally important to their development as leaders. Specifically, students
were asked to reflect on their leadership development in reference to their
community service, previous life experiences, course content and personal
motivational values. The reflections totaled 419 historical documents rang-
ing from 2004–14, from which 153 total documents representative of
individuals’ experiences were used when they were determined to fit the
operationalized definition of leadership (see Northhouse, Chap. 1); the
sample was then limited by theoretical saturation. The study was conducted
longitudinally over an eight-year period.
All these documents were exported into AtlasTi, a qualitative assessment
tool, and grounded theory methodology was applied. Since the documents
were public information, submitted in the junior or senior year, many
students were also available for follow-up clarifying interviews as part of
their extended coursework. Additional clarification interview questions
were asked regarding statements and reflections from their submitted port-
folios, or were reflected in course assignments that pertained to leadership.
More detailed information regarding participants, data sources and proce-
dure, as well as details regarding specific age range, year in the undergrad-
uate program and representation from academic discipline, are located in
Appendix 1. Limitations of the research contained in this chapter are found

in Appendix 3.
RESULTS
Using grounded theory methodology, the following model emerged
depicting elements of prosocial leadership development as demonstrated
in Table 5.1. Specifically, the four stages of prosocial leadership develop-
ment that emerged were (1) antecedent awareness and empathic concern,
(2) community and group commitment, (3) courage and action and, finally,
(4) reflection and growth. Each of the four stages described also has
accompanying steps. Two foundational elements are part of and found in
every aspect of all four stages of the prosocial development process—the
projected representative and integration. These two foundational elements
will be discussed in this chapter after the four stages, with their accompa-
nying steps, are discussed. Of the 153 individuals assessed, only 24 individ-
uals, roughly 15 percent, were determined to have moved through all four
stages of the prosocial leadership development process. See Table 5.2 for the
number of individuals who entered and completed each stage in the
prosocial leadership development process.
ANTECEDENT AWARENESS AND EMPATHIC CONCERN: STAGE ONE

At the initial stage the individual began to conceptualize what specific
actions, ideas, attitudes or values would best represent the person or type
of leader he or she desired to become. However, the early concepts lacked
objectivity and were vague, so instinctively the emerging leaders looked
back into their past experiences. To this end four subthemes emerged
sequentially from the data as distinct phenomena. The themes are described
generally below, with specific research evidence, delineation of the step,
specific relationships and chronology in the process depicted in Chap. 6.
The first theme that emerged in stage one was referred to as step one.
The term step is used for all the subthemes because, as noted above, the
themes emerged sequentially. Step one, stage one, of the prosocial leader
development process was initiated when the individual made an honest
evaluation of past formative life experiences, which cultivated or created
awareness of innate values, or beliefs. Reflections included both negative
and positive values, rules or norms, and past experiences, although they
were, in most cases, devoid of affect and attitudinally clinical in assessment.
Table 5.1 Prosocial leadership development process
Ultimate Projected representative

goal Idealized self
Moral Integration
reasoning
Goals Intrapersonal goals Interpersonal goals Intra- and inter- Future goals set
personals
Prosocial Empathy Empathy Empathy and Empathy and altruism
values altruism
Stages Stage one Stage two Stage three Stage four
Antecedent awareness and Community and group Courage and Reflection and growth
empathic concern commitment action
Chapters Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9
Steps Step one: Self-awareness/ Step Five: Commitment to Step nine: Moral Step twelve: Self reflective and others
antecedents group or community courage assessment
Step two: Emotional Step Six: Diversity, group Step ten: Lived Step thirteen: Commitment to future intra-
responsiveness agreement challenge experiences personal and interpersonal goals
Step three: Empathic In-group Step eleven: Goal Step fourteen: Awareness of progressive
concern Out-group coalescence nature of personal growth
Step four: Intrapersonal Step Seven: Interpersonal
goals goals
Step Eight: Altruistic
awareness
ANTECEDENT AWARENESS AND EMPATHIC CONCERN: STAGE ONE
85
Table 5.2 Number Stage Total survey population (N ¼ 153a)

identified who completed
each stage Stage one 72
Stage two 63
Stage three 32
Stage four 24
a
419 individuals were part of the research group, but 153 documents
were sufficient to reach saturation
These individuals were candid about their past, and regarded their past
experiences with critical analysis, but, more importantly, they personalized
each event, understanding their role in the event and/or the events’ impact
on their lives.
A second theme, step two, is emotional responsiveness, wherein individ-
uals identified associated values found within their past experiences. Some-
times during this process ambivalence was expressed. These past experiences
were the antecedents forming the values that drove prosocial behavior and
included socialization by a family, group or individual from those groups.
Connections to past antecedents, which create motivational emotional
responsiveness, are supported by multiple researchers (Eisenberg 1986;
Farrant et al. 2012; Hood 2003).
The third theme that arose from the data, step three, was the selection of
and focus on the motivating value of empathy, which was attributed to past
formative experiences representative of socialization by family or social
groups from which individuals received care or welfare. Empathy as a
motivating interpersonal and intrapersonal value for the initiation of
prosocial leadership development and corresponding action finds support
within the literature (Beirhoff et al. 1991; Belschak and Den Harton 2010;
Schwartz 1994).
The final theme that emerged, step four, was the formation of intraper-
sonal goals, wherein individuals identified specific attitudes, actions or
beliefs that would actualize the welfare of the other and agree with forming
their projected representative identities, which was instrumental in arriving
at the desired personal identity. However, these goals were typically of a
personal nature and, while they might involve care for a community, they
were largely designed for the individuals to grow themselves. The literature
does suggest that goals are tied to needs (Eisenberg 2010) and have the
ability to self-determine (Eccles and Wigfield 2002), and that social contexts
support the satisfaction of basic needs (Deci and Ryan 2000).
COMMUNITY AND GROUP COMMITMENT: STAGE TWO 87
COMMUNITY AND GROUP COMMITMENT: STAGE TWO

In this second stage individuals understood their commitments to a com-
munity or group as a continuation of their leadership development process
and, specifically, their pursuit of the persons they believed they could
ultimately become. To this end four subthemes emerged chronologically
from the data as distinct phenomena. The themes are described generally
below, with specific research evidence, delineation of the step, specific
relationships and chronology in the process depicted in Chap. 7.
Theme one, step five in stage two, is an awareness of the individual’s
commitment to a group or community. The self-awareness present in stage
one, step one, is now expanded to awareness of the other. These individuals
understood that they had made commitments to a group or community,
and there were accompanying expectations, indicating that self-awareness
led to others-awareness, since the self forms in relationship to others.
Research literature supports these findings regarding the psychological
nature of human experiences (Loulis and Kuczynski 1997): relationships
are iterative (Giddens 1991) and social interaction is between individuals
and their interactions with others (Udehn 2002).
A second theme, step six, is when individuals experienced challenges or
vulnerabilities from groups or communities they were committed to but felt
threatened by. And, depending on the familiarity and inclusion or exclusion
within the group or community, their level of anxiety correspondingly
varied. Again, the literature supports the notion that diversity and integrat-
ing into out-groups are important parts of human development, but such
integration often results in anxiety (Fiske 1992; Hartog et al. 1999;
Komives and Wagner 2009).
A third theme, step seven, can be identified by a shift in goals from
intrapersonal to interpersonal. The commitment to the group created a
perception that the goals the individual held might actually be self-serving
or not sufficient to ensure the welfare of others. This awareness was self-
assessment but also a result of conversations with members of the group
concerning the perceived goals or of reflection on knowledge of the group.
Here research suggests that most leaders are identified by followers because
they support mutual group goals, which initiates followers’ participation,
aligning the expectations of those who seek personal power (Maner and
Mead 2010) with those who have personal need (Rus et al. 2010).
The final step, within this stage two, is activation of altruism, which
occurred when individuals understood that their goals might be self-serving
or have limited ability to address the welfare of others, and, while individuals
did not entirely dismiss their intrapersonal goals, those intrapersonal goals
were complemented by interpersonal goals based on altruism activation.
Again, research suggests that moral reasoning can include altruism when
individuals are forced into decisions where they are asked to care for the
welfare of another (Batson 2010), that leaders emerge through self-
sacrificing behavior (Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg 2005) and
that self-sacrificing leadership behaviors enable individual and organiza-
tional change (Choi and Mai-Dalton 1998).
COURAGE AND ACTION: STAGE THREE

Stage three could be identified when developing prosocial leaders commit-
ted to act on their ideas, which required moral courage and direct action
within an actual lived experience. To this end, three subthemes or steps
emerged, which also were chronological and emerged from the data as
distinct phenomena. The themes are described generally below, with spe-
cific research evidence, delineation of the step, specific relationships and
chronology in the process depicted in Chap. 8.
Step nine, moral courage, occurred when the developing prosocial
leaders had to find the courage to act despite feeling threatened by and
vulnerable to the unfamiliar; they became aware that their ideas rooted in
motivational values would become actions because the experience was real.
Here altruistic action occurred, and welfare of the other was attempted in
action. Research supports both the idea that others-directed actions are
preceded by and contingent on moral courage (Hannah et al. 2011).
Step ten, lived experiences, was identified when individuals understood
that moral courage was displayed only within the context of actions within
lived experiences, and that lived experiences created clarity in individual
leaders’ thoughts and purposes. This is supported by research literature that
understands that experiences have developmental potential (Fallesen and
Halpin 2004) and that leadership development models embrace lived expe-
riences as formative (Brown et al. 2005; Komives et al. 2009).
Goal coalescence, the final and eleventh step in this stage, occurred when
both intrapersonal and interpersonal goals converged, and both became
instrumental for the individual leader. But the leader also became aware of
the self-regulating nature of goals. Research supports the self-regulating
nature of goals (Brett and VandeWalle 1999) and the nature of develop-
mental goals acting as learning goals (Seijts et al. 2004).
FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT: PROJECTED REPRESENTATIVE 89
REFLECTION AND GROWTH: STAGE FOUR

At this final stage individuals began to reflect on their development and to
plan for future developmental goals. To this end three subthemes, or steps,
emerged chronologically from the data as distinct phenomena. The themes
are described generally below, with specific research evidence, delineation of
the step, specific relationships and chronology in the process depicted in
Chap. 9.
Step twelve is self-awareness, wherein individuals considered the self-
development they had experienced and looked back with clarity on their
intrapersonal growth. This clarity of thinking, also regarded as mindfulness,
finds support in both leadership literature (Fry and Nisiewicz 2013;
Komives et al. 2009) and psychological literature (Glomb et al. 2011;
McKee et al. 2006). The self-reflective capacity, which led to prosocial
goals, is supported by research literature (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Becker
2013; Hardy and Carlo 2005b; Komives and Wagner 2009; Munusamy
et al. 2010; Walumbwa et al. 2011).
The thirteenth step is commitment to future goals, wherein individuals
understood the critical role goals played in their own personal development,
whereby they regulated and helped prioritize their behavior. The literature
supports the ability of goals to regulate behavior (Latham and Locke 1991)
and to help leaders anticipate the future with aspirations after reviewing
positive results from their past (Brandtstädter 1992; Pulkkinen and R€onkä
1994; Oettingen et al. 2001).
The final and fourteenth step occurred when the individual understood
the progressive nature of growth and when such growth ushered the
individual back into the prosocial leadership development process. Here,
the literature supports the human need to flourish by looking to the future
for growth and fulfillment and thus tacitly admitting the necessity of pro-
gressive and ongoing growth (Rogers 1959).
FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT: PROJECTED REPRESENTATIVE

The projected representative was the collection of the individual’s previ-
ously mentioned antecedents, which included experiences, as represented
by him or her, and became a representation of the person he or she desired
to become, that is, of his or her idealized self. This projected representative
in actually was the forming identity of the idealized self, or the prosocial
leader he or she wanted to become. The projected representative was
present through every stage of the prosocial leadership development process

and thus became the penultimate goal. The phenomenon has been identi-
fied by researchers who describe moral development as being fostered by a
person’s desire to live consistently with what is regarded here as the ideal-
ized moral self (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Becker 2013; Hardy and Carlo
2005b; Komives and Wagner 2009; Munusamy et al. 2010; Walumbwa
et al. 2011).
FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT: INTEGRATION

Integration is a form of cognitive appraisal and rational moral reasoning,
which was instigated by the developing leaders’ need to respond to their
empathy, but it is also the primary function or means to compare goals
based on empathy, with the projected representative (higher self) ensuring
that such goals are consistent. While cognitive assessment or integration
began with the use of empathic concern as the evaluation criterion, later it
became a means to triangulate what the leader deemed as reasonable
congruence between the goals and the projected representative. The desire
was to find congruency between the two using cognitive moral assessment
or integration. Research supports integrative evaluation regarding moral
reasoning (Damasio 2003; Paciello et al. 2013), and specifically in ethical
decision-making models (Cooper 2012).
SUPPORT FROM THE LITERATURE

In the chapters that follow, each stage and its accompanying steps are
described, along with supportive research; the relational process between
the elements within the stage is also discussed. A general survey of support-
ive research is contained in Table 5.3.
SUMMARY AND REFLECTION

This chapter provided an orientation to the participants, data and procedure
contained in this research (more information is found in Appendices 1 and
3). The chapter then discussed the results of the grounded theory model
used in which four themes emerged from the data; each theme was intro-
duced and, along with this, a discussion of the process of development, or
steps, was also introduced.
SUMMARY AND REFLECTION 91
Table 5.3 Literature agreement
Prosocial leadership Support from literature

formative steps
Stage one
Self-awareness/ Luthans and Avolio (2003), Ruedy and Schweitzer (2010),
antecedents Kochanska (1984)
Emotional Eisenberg (1986), Farrant et al. (2012), Hood (2003)
responsiveness
Empathic concern Batson (2010), Beirhoff (2002), Belschak and Den Harton (2010),
Beirhoff et al. (1991), Hastings et al. (2000), Brocato et al. (2011)
Intrapersonal goals Eccles and Wigfield (2002), Deci and Ryan (2000)
Stage two
Community Giddens (1991), Loulis and Kuczynski (1997), Udehn (2002)
commitment
Diversity/challenge Fiske (1992), Hartog et al. (1999), Komives and Wagner (2009)
Interpersonal goals Hawley (2014), Maner and Mead (2010), Rus et al. (2010)
Altruism (empathy) Batson (2010), Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998), De Cremer et al.
(2004), Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg (2005)
Stage three
Moral courage Comer and Vega (2005), De Hoog et al. (2005)
Actual lived Ashforth et al. (2008), Brown et al. (2005), Day et al. (2008),
experiences Walker (2001)
Goal coalescence Brett and VandeWalle (1999), Elliott and Dweck (1988), Goud
(2005)
Stage four
Self-reflective Ashforth and Mael (1989), Becker (2013), Hardy and Carlo
assessment (2005b), Komives and Wagner (2009), Munusamy et al. (2010),
Walumbwa et al. (2011)
Commitment to future Glomb et al. (2011), McKee et al. (2006), Liere and Dunlap
goals (1978)
Progressive nature of Latham and Locke (1991), Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997),
growth Pulkkinen and R€onkä (1994)
Foundational elements
Projected representative Blasi (1984), Day et al. (2008), Hogg and Terry (2000), Lapsley
and Narvaez (2004), Lee (1995), Mahoney and Katz (1976)
Integration Damasio (2003), Paciello et al. (2013), Nucci (2004), Ashforth
and Mael (1989), Becker (2013), Hardy and Carlo (2005b),
Komives and Wagner (2009)
The chapters that follow contain a description of the prosocial leadership

development process. Within the description of the prosocial leadership
development process, connections with existing developmental models of
leadership, existing connections of leadership to prosocial behavior and
consideration of the normative ethical categories will be referenced as an
attempt to place this leadership development process in its corresponding
role as a neighboring or supporting leadership theory. The research that
follows endeavors to demonstrate that others-directed behaviors can be
determined by the use of prosocial values as defined by Schwartz (1994)
and Batson (2010). Prosocial values are portrayed as endemic, agentic and
representative of a desire to arrive at the idealized self.
The research that follows creates a unique perspective on leadership,
providing the possibility of estimating the development and identity of
prosocial leaders. When applied to leadership theories and leadership devel-
opment, the proposed model herein appears to have more synchronicity
with the actual descriptive activities of humans’ ethical leadership attempts
and development within the workplace. For instance, Brown et al. (2005)
define moral leadership as “Appropriate conduct through personal actions
and interpersonal relationships, as well as the promotion of such conduct
though two-way communication, reinforcement and decision making”
(p. 120), which describes, albeit incompletely, the results of this research.
REFERENCES
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organi-
zations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management,
34(3), 325–374.
Becker, G. (2013). The competitive edge of moral leadership. In Dimensions of
teaching business ethics in Asia. Berlin: Springer Asia.
Belschak, F., & Den Harton, D. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational
foci of proactive behavior: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475–498.
REFERENCES 93
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. M. Kurtines

& J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development
(pp. 128–139). New York: Wiley.
Brandtstädter, J. (1992). Personal control over development: Some developmental
implications of self-efficacy. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of
action (pp. 127–145). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Brett, J. F., & Vande Walle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictors
of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 863–873.
Brocato, B., Jelen, J., Schmidt, T., & Gold, S. (2011). Leadership conceptual ambigu-
ities: A post-positivistic critique. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 35–50.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice.
Comer, D. R., & Vega, G. (2005). An experiential exercise that introduces the
concept of the personal ethical threshold to develop moral courage. Journal of
Business Ethics Education, 2(2), 171–197.
Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain.
Round Rock, TX: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Routledge.
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. (2004). Distributive justice moderating
the effects of self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 25(5), 466–475.
De Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., & De Wit, J. B. (2005). The impact of fear appeals on
processing and acceptance of action recommendations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 24–33.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, congnition, and behavior. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation, moral
judgment, and moral behavior. In M. E. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 129–
148). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5.
Ewest, T. (2015a). Christian identity as primary foundation to workplace ethics.
Religions, 12, 22–30.
Fallesen, J. J., & Halpin, S. M. (2004). Representing cognition as an intent-driven
process. In The science and simulation of human performance (pp. 195–266).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Farrant, B., Devine, T., Maybery, M., & Fletcher, J. (2012). Empathy, perspective
taking and prosocial behavior: The importance of parenting practices. Infant and
Child Development, 21, 175–188.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified
theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689.
Giddens, A. (1991). Structuration theory. Past, present and future. In C. Bryant &
D. Jary (Eds.), Giddens’ theory of structuration. A critical appreciation. London:
Routledge.
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work.
In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 115–157).
Goud, N. H. (2005). Courage: Its nature and development. The Journal of Human-
istic Counseling, 44(1), 102–116.
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005b). Religiosity and prosocial behaviors in adolescence:
The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34(2), 231–249.
Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. U., Ruiz-Quinanilla, S. A., & Dorfman,
P. W. (1999). Culture-specific and cross culturally generalizable implicit leader-
ship theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership univer-
sally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219–257.
Hawley, P. H. (2014). Evolution, prosocial behavior, and altruism. In Prosocial devel-
opment: A multidimensional approach (p. 43). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes
in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical
practices\organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 263–273.
REFERENCES 95
Kochanska, G. (1984). Regulatory theory of personality and the development of

prosocial behaviors. In Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior
(pp. 155–176). Boston: Springer.
the social change model of leadership development. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (2004). Moral development, self and identity.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lee, C. (1995). Prosocial organizational behaviors: The roles of workplace justice,
achievement striving and pay satisfaction. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10(2),
197–206.
Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An
application of Schwartz’s norm-activation model to yard burning. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 8(2), 174–188.
Loulis, S., & Kuczynski, L. (1997). Beyond one hand clapping: Seeing
bidirectionality in parent-child relations. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 14(4), 441–461.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach.
Positive organizational behavior (pp. 241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and
power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482.
McKee, A., Johnston, F., & Massimilian, R. (2006). Mindfulness, hope and com-
passion: A leader’s road map to renewal. Ivey Business Journal, 70(5), 1–5.
Munusamy, V., Ruderman, M., & Eckert, R. (2010). Leader development and
social identity. In E. Velsor, C. McCauley, & M. Ruderman (Eds.), The center
for creative leadership: Handpaper of leadership development. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass Publishers.
Nucci, L. (2004). Reflections on the moral self construct. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez
(Eds.), Moral development, self, and identity (pp. 111–132). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Oettingen, G., Pak, H. J., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal-setting:
Turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80(5), 736.
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Cerniglia, L., Tramontano, C., & Cole, E. (2013). High cost
helping scenario: The role of empathy, prosocial reasoning and moral disengage-
ment on helping behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(1), 3–7.
Pulkkinen, L., & R€onkä, A. (1994). Personal control over development, identity
formation, and future orientation as components of life orientation: A develop-
mental approach. Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 260.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A tentative scale for the measurement of process in psychother-
apy. In Research in Psychotherapy, April 1958, Washington, DC. This confer-
ence, financed by a grant (M-2031) from the National Institute of Mental
Health, US Public Health Service, was held under the auspices of the Division
of Clinical Psychology, American Psychological Association, with planning and
programming by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Division of Clinical Psychology;
Frank Auld, Jr., Morris B. Parloff, Benjamin Pasamanick, George Saslow, Julius
Seeman, and Eli A. Rubinstein, Chairman. American Psychological Association.
Rus, D., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader power and leader self-
serving behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefs and performance infor-
mation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 922–933.
Russell, W. G., & Lipsky, D. (2008). The sustainable enterprise fieldbook: When it all
comes together. New York: American Management Association.
Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and
goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy
of Management Journal, 47(2), 227–239.
Udehn, L. (2002). The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual
Review of Sociology, 28(1), 479–507.
Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and
leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25.
Walker, J. T. (2001). Walker leadership development of students engaged in experiential
learning: Implications for internship programs in textiles and apparel. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina Greensboro, NC.
Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Retracted: Authen-
tically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and
trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 4–24.
89(1), 29.
CHAPTER 6
Stage One: Antecedent Awareness

and Empathic Concern
INTRODUCTION
In 2014 the world economic forum reported that leadership deficit was a
major global problem to be addressed. In response, the African Develop-
ment Bank convened a summit held at Kigali, Rwanda, to address Africa’s
leadership deficit. The group generally agreed that there is an African
Renaissance occurring on the continent, but questioned if existing or
developing leadership can create an Africa free of violence, war and corrup-
tion. The group of dignitaries, politicians and scholars questioned how
more leaders can be developed and, more importantly, where leadership
development begins. Former president of the Republic of South Africa,
Thabo Mbeki, when pressed for an answer, responded, “We need a critical
self-assessment of ourselves as Africans” (Af DBGroup 2014, May
22, 48:15 minutes). The suggestion that the initial step of leadership
development involves looking back and assessing the past may raise some
suspicions for many leadership theorists.
Many leadership theorists may alternatively offer a different perspective
suggesting that leadership development begins with first defining and then
adhering to a select set of normative ethical principles (e.g., honesty,
modeling the way, service to others) or with the recitation of other similar
noble goals. Critical self-assessment would probably not be mentioned as a
first step in leadership development. Yet, President Mbeki in his remarks
continued to suggest that leadership is first developed through critical self-
assessment: “I think that critical self-assessment of the continent is necessary

98 6 STAGE ONE: ANTECEDENT AWARENESS AND EMPATHIC CONCERN
. . . it is a critical step forward in producing the type of leadership Africa

needs” (48:15 minutes).
Prosocial leaders intuitively understand that personal meaning is foun-
dational to authentic behavior, and personal meaning is found in resusci-
tating past experiences and, from those experiences, seeking a deeper
personal meaning. Deeper personal meaning is important to developing a
sustained commitment to leadership, particularly ethical or prosocial lead-
ership. But what is not initially apprehended by individuals in stage one is
that the meaning they seek is ultimately found within the community they
will serve. Margaret Wheatley (1993) writes:
One quality particular to human beings is the need to know “Why?” We need
to understand and ascribe meaning to things. When we are able to reflect on
our experience and develop our interpretation, we can endure even the most
horrendous events. Even horrific accidents do not appear then as random
assaults; we make sense of them from a grander logic. As organizations
continue to experience so many momentous challenges, we do a great disser-
vice to one another if we try to get through these times by staying at a
superficial level or believing we are motivated only by self-interest. We have
a great need to understand from a larger perspective why we are confronted
with dislocation and loss. We have to be willing to speak about events from
this deeper level of meaning. (p. 133)
This chapter provides the reader with a description of the steps in stage
one of the prosocial leadership development process. Specifically, this chap-
ter reviews the components of stage one, then discusses the development
process and the nature of the relationship between steps in stage one. The
chapter then defines each of the four steps in this stage: self-awareness/
antecedents, emotional awareness, empathy and intrapersonal goals. A
discussion also describes the function of the two foundational elements
that remain consistent throughout the process: the projected representative
and integration. The chapter resolves with a short discussion of and reflec-
tion on the critical components of stage one.
While not every leader in the study developed into a prosocial leader,
leaders who did develop into prosocial leaders—meaning that their personal
motivations were empathic and led to altruistic others-directed action, and
that their actions fit within the definition of leadership by influencing a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal1—can be typified by follow-
ing four steps in the developmental process: antecedents, emotional
INTRODUCTION 99
Table 6.1 Components of stage one
Step one Self-awareness/ Considerations from the past that were formative and
antecedents that cultivated or created awareness of innate values, or
beliefs. Vague, typically attached to a group, community
or organization where the individual was connected and
may have experienced socialization
Step two Emotional Affectual response or feelings, which identify associated
responsiveness values found within experiences. Sometimes ambivalence
is expressed
Step three Empathy Consideration of others regarding their welfare
Step four Intrapersonal Identifying specific attitudes, actions or beliefs that
goals would actualize the welfare of the other and agree with
the projected representative identity, which are instru-
mental in arriving at the person’s desired identity. How-
ever, these goals are typically of a personal nature and are
not directed towards community
Foundational Projected repre- A formative ideal, which becomes a terminal goal, and
elements sentative (PR) ultimately the desired personal identity. The PR can be
represented by a group, leadership ideal, or person.
Typically, the PR is an amalgamation of ideas, values and
experiences, but ultimately it is codified into a single ideal
that the individual explicitly or by implication identifies as
the desired personal identity
Integrity Functional in nature, wherein the individual endeavors to
find agreement between previous experiences/anteced-
ents and the PR. A type of reasoning triangulating goals,
empathic values and the PR or idealized self
responsiveness, empathy and intrapersonal goals. From the 153 documents

assessed for content, 72 individuals were identified as moving all the way
through stage one. These four steps contribute to two foundational ele-
ments found throughout the prosocial leadership developmental process:
the projected representative and integration. Each of these steps has distinct
characteristics and themes. The definitions for each step are provided in
Table 6.1.
Moreover, the four steps occurred chronologically, with individuals
becoming aware (self-aware) of antecedents, which was always associated
with an emotional responsiveness, including empathy. The prosocial leader
selected empathy as an important motivator or value, and set goals based on
the desire to actualize his or her care of others. These goals were reflected
against the ultimate goal of forming a personal identity as a leader—the
Projected Representative
Self-Awareness/Antecedents
is associated with is part of
is associated with
Emotional Responsiveness Intrapersonal Goals
is cause of is cause of is associated with
Empathy
is cause of
Integrity
Fig. 6.1 Relationships of steps in stage one
projected representative—upon which the person evaluated the projected ideal

of an idealized self. This self was triangulated against the proposed goals. These
three elements were an iterative process (goals, projected representative and
integration). It is important to note, that the steps within this initial stage have a
degree of concurrence of results, conjunction of timing and interface. How-
ever, each step also is recognizable as distinct. The relationship between these
elements is seen in Fig. 6.1.
STEP ONE: SELF-AWARENESS/ANTECEDENTS

Individuals who developed into prosocial leaders began by honestly
assessing their past. Their responses were typified by reflections on past
experiences by which they endeavored to recollect as much as they could
of their past. Reflections included both negative and positive values, rules or
norms and experiences, and were mostly devoid of affect, attitudinally
clinical in attitude. These individuals were candid about their past, and
regarded their past experiences with critical analysis, but, more importantly,
they personalized each event.
STEP ONE: SELF-AWARENESS/ANTECEDENTS 101
Table 6.2 Step one: self-awareness/antecedents
21-year-old “Thinking back I have had multiple influences that brought me to who I am
female today. But, I often wonder who I am influencing—anyone?”
21-year-old “I was reminded of my grandfather who spent countless hours caring for me
male and as I began to remember his care, many times though I did not appreciate
what he was doing for me. Am I uncaring or just don’t know how to help?”
18-year-old “Growing up in the church I saw people who were hypocritical, looking
female back, I count myself among them, but isn’t everyone a hypocrite?”
20-year-old “My Mom was there for me every day, faithfully caring for my needs, and
male that is what I strive to do for my family”
19-year-old “My coach wanted to win. If we lost he would take it personally and I would
male feel guilty, like I did something wrong. The team was about his need to feel
important”
They also recognized that their past experiences were a formative com-
ponent for their present personal identity, noted by a consistent personal-
ization of events with the use of possessive words like “me”, “mine” and
“for me” when referring to past events. These individuals, without being
instructed, did not audit the negative experiences and positive past experi-
ences, including associated values, beliefs and associated feelings; instead
they simply took account of the experiences as if they were collecting and
assessing everything from their past. The associated past experiences were
used to express or understand the personal values operative in their own
lives, but at this point these values were vague and thus differed from the
projected representative and the attachment to or identification of specific
values that are part of step two. See Table 6.2 for sample statements of
individuals identified as being in this step.
Support for this initial step can be found from Noel Tichy (Tichy and
Cohen 1997) in his book The Leadership Engine: How Winning Companies
Build Leaders at Every Level. Tichy argues that “all people have untapped
leadership potential” (p. 6), and one of the ways individuals arrive at their
leadership potential is from reflecting on their own lives and experiences.
For Tichy, individuals’ past experiences act as a prologue for leaders who
find in reflecting on emotional highs and lows important life experience-
based lessons to carry forward into their own leadership. Tichy notes that,
“Winning leaders consciously think about their experiences. They roll them
over in their minds, analyze them and draw lessons from them” (p. 59).
Tichy’s description is illustrative of how emerging prosocial leaders regard
their past experiences.
Luthans and Avolio (2003) have also argued that individuals could use
their own life experiences to form authentic leadership. Likewise, Marsh’s
(2013) concept of ethical leadership suggests that a leader’s ethical frame-
work is developed through the individual’s awareness of his or her present
experiences (Ruedy and Schweitzer 2010). Again this is supportive of the
research herein where the leader’s past experiences were also an important
antecedent that played a significant and early role in the formation of the
prosocial leader. When considering the individuals who did not complete
stage one of the prosocial leadership development process, many of them
did look back into their past but then immediately looked towards future
expectations and obligations of leadership or audited and then edited their
past experiences, focusing on positive experiences.
Support for this initial step also comes from Lord and Brown (2003),
who argue that self-development is connected to an individual’s self-view
and his or her view of future possible-selves (discussed more in stage two).
“Many potential self-views can exist in long-term memory, and only a few
are activated by situational cues” (p. 21). For them, self-views are “an
individual’s perceived standing on attributes made salient by a particular
context” (p. 21). These attributes for the prosocial leader in this research
included intellect, personal abilities or social skills made apparent through
the review of past experiences, which is supported by the work of McNulty
and Swann, Jr. (1994). Self-views define who the person currently is,
whereas possible-selves define who the person can become; this distinction
is discussed later in this chapter. Self-view, as described by Lord and Brown,
would be an accurate depiction of individuals in the first step of this process.
Self-structure may be another way of describing the phenomena that
emerged in step one. Self-structure is formed by the process of gathering
and transforming experiences connected with the self. Here the person
recognizes the space between the self and what is not part of the self
(Kochanska 1984). Hannah et al. (2011) have posited that a leader’s self-
constructs are in fact linked to role demands and bring forth cognitions,
values and expectancies. And the self-concept, its formation and regulation,
is part of personal adjustment (Campbell et al. 2016). However, while this
step did include the gathering of information, the sorting among experi-
ences is not seen until the next step.
Recalling past experiences and recognizing their formative contributions
to the present are also widely recognized within sociological and psycho-
logical literature. Lindenberg et al. (2006) considers that both the socio-
logical and psychological components of socialization are comprised of
STEP TWO: EMOTIONAL RESPONSIVENESS 103
complex trans-situational, cognitive and situational interaction. Sociologi-

cally referred to as solidarity and psychologically referred to as socialization,
both concepts point to the process in which norms are internalized and
personalities are formed through the individual’s interaction with social,
institutional and cultural forces, providing a basis for self-identity. While
these descriptions depict phenomena broader in scope than this step, they
are indicative of the reality of the importance of past experiences as a
determinant of a person’s identity.
STEP TWO: EMOTIONAL RESPONSIVENESS

While step one involved the individual reviewing past experiences, it was
largely devoid of affectual response. In some cases, those individuals in the
research group who demonstrated a significant amount of affectual
response, falsely projected either positive or negative feelings onto their
past experiences, which appeared to keep them from an honest assessment
of themselves. Yet, after a thorough assessment of past experiences as seen in
step one, affectual responses or feelings were instrumental in identifying
associated formative values found within those past experiences. Sometimes,
however, ambivalence was expressed regarding the individual’s past. In this
step, individuals who developed into prosocial leaders were moved to
respond, moving from collecting and assessing their past experiences to a
recognition that they felt deeply about these past formative experiences.
And, while reasoning was active in this step, what was more predominant,
although still somewhat vague, were feelings of fear and hope concerning
the multiple formative experiences and the possible choices they were left to
make concerning who they could become. Individuals began to compare
the various options of who they could become and grew hopeful, fearful and
ambivalent regarding their future selves.
Fear or regret was present when individuals did not appreciate the values
cultivated from past experiences or when there were negative impacts
communicated from past formative experiences, and hope was present
when their past formative experiences had a positive impact on their lives.
While no personal development goals were established at this point, as
reflection continued, individuals became more aware of the motivational
values of those who had acted in their lives as well as of their personal
motivational values. The comparison of competing, complementary and
conflicting past formative experiences created a motivation for change. By
the end of this step, individuals were able to identify specific or vague values,
Table 6.3 Emotional responsiveness
20-year-old female “When I think about my past, I realize that who I am today, may have
come about without me being the intentional. So, if I have to lead
others, I may have to prepare myself, to be more intentional”
21-year-old male “I am not sure who I am. I am somewhat disappointed in myself, who I
have become. But realize I can become someone who can be driven by
the good things I value, like helping others”
20-year-old men “As a resident assistant, I had to fill a role of the mother and a father to
the men on my floor. I was in charge of security and tranquility of the
dorm throughout the academic year. I want to be kind, like my parents”
18-year-old female “I think there are two or more versions of me. Sometimes I see myself in
the past responding to kindness and returning kindness. Other times
I see how self-absorbed I was”
which they understood to be ideals and goals for which they could strive,
indicating that reason and cognition began to play a larger role. See
Table 6.3 for sample statements of individuals identified as being in this
step.
Again, antecedents of prosocial behavior, such as socialization by a
family, group or individual from a group, and their connection to emotional
responsiveness is supported by multiple researchers (Eisenberg 1986;
Farrant et al. 2012; Hood 2003). The variance in individuals’ responses is
also recognized by researchers. Personal individual differences contribute to
degrees of self-regulation or, more specifically, to the ability of individuals to
regulate their own emotions (Niven et al. 2009). Self-regulation occurs
through extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evalu-
ating, and modifying emotional reactions (Thompson 1994), which typi-
cally involve evaluations of the external environment through personal
frameworks to make sense of an event (Yap and Tong 2009), suggesting
that this responsiveness is both an internal dynamic but also context specific.
Direct support also comes from appraisal theory, which suggests that emo-
tions are extracted from our appraisal of past events, causing reactions in
people as they appraise a situation and make future decisions (Scherer et al.
2001). Again, while the descriptions are beyond the scope of this step, they
do accurately describe the modality of emotions that emerged in the
research subjects.
Karniol and Ross (1996) posit that different emotions are naturally
generated when people focus on the elements that contribute to their
present selves as compared to when they are focusing on their future or
STEP TWO: EMOTIONAL RESPONSIVENESS 105
potential selves. When focusing on the present self, emotions such as

happiness, anger and sadness tend to be present, all of which indicates
that emotions are active and present when self-reflection takes place.
Another explanation for the multiplicity of emotions derived from past
experiences is recognized by Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1994). As
mentioned in Chap. 3, for these two researchers, human values fall into
two categories: instrumental and terminal. Terminal values refer to desirable
goals people would like to achieve during their lifetimes. Instrumental
values refer to modes of behavior used to achieve terminal values. In this
second step, individuals are not concerned with terminal values, or goals,
but do become aware of good and bad motivational values derived from
their past experiences and generated emotions (affectual response). While
values are not emotional states, the process of being motivated by values
results in affectual conditions. Eisenberg (2014) also suggests that a multi-
plicity of emotions may arise (e.g., guilt, shame, happiness) when one
compares values to empathy and associated acts of altruism.
Alternatively, support comes from Lord and Brown (2003), who argue
for a development condition known as possible-selves, which they consider
to be the second component of self-development, explaining who a person
could become. For individuals, the possible-selves represent ideals for and to
which individuals strive or aspire. For Lord and Brown, individual reflec-
tions may include time periods in a person’s life, important life events or
traumatic events. These possible-self-views are compared with the afore-
mentioned present self-views and from this arises a further compression and
prioritization of the desired values. Individuals begin to project themselves
into multiple futures, which is an evaluative mechanism, as supported by
image theory (Beach and Mitchell 1987). Lord and Brown also note that as
individuals sort through their possible-selves and seem to come close to
being like persons they fear or despise, they may find their ideal selves less
appealing, demonstrating the role of emotions in the self-identity process.
Support is also found from Collins and Jackson (2015), whose research
indicates that as leaders’ task difficulty increases, leaders can be overcome by
negative emotions that impair their ability to self-regulate emotions and
respond appropriately. Step two ended with a balance between emotions
and a form of reasoning that creates a better self-understanding. It is the
balancing of emotional intelligence and intellectual capacity that,
Hamachek (2000) argues, leads to self-knowledge and self-awareness.
STEP THREE: EMPATHIC CONCERN

The awareness of the possible-selves was followed by a prioritization of the
self that the individual most values. The prosocial leader prioritizes among
the possibilities of the present self, derived from configurations of past
experiences, specifically focusing on those experiences that contained the
giving or receiving of welfare or empathy. Typically, there were a few select
events, groups or individuals who were exemplars in illustrating the value of
welfare or empathy. As individuals compared and assessed the many moti-
vations, values and experiences, they prioritized the care or welfare received
from others as being their most valued experiences and, correspondingly,
their most important goals for future personal development. At this step,
the function of integration became more pronounced, wherein the individ-
ual endeavored to find agreement between previous experiences/anteced-
ents and the projected representative (future self). Ultimately, integration
would also consider goals as the individual triangulated intrapersonal goals,
values and the projected representative or idealized self. See Table 6.4 for
sample statements of individuals identified as being in this step.
While understanding that the precious motivational elements behind
prosocial behavior are very difficult to determine and are typically not
known since they are so multivariate, psychological literature does support
the reality of empathic-related responses (Eisenberg and Spinrad 2014;
Batson 2010). Eisenberg (2010) understands “empathy as an effective
response stemming from the apprehension or comprehension of another’s
emotional state or condition” (p. 130). Empathy as a motivating interper-
sonal value for initial prosocial leadership development and corresponding
Table 6.4 Empathic concern
20-year-old “I feel best about myself when I am caring for others, putting myself
female second and them first”
20-year-old “In the past decade, my community has drastically changed due to the
female wide range of immigrants that have come to work in [hometown]. But my
community has welcomed them and been caring. I too want to be caring”
19-year-old male “I want to be like people in my church, caring. Out of all the possibilities of
how to live my life, I would choose to be like them”
19-year-old “My Mother was so deeply caring for my father in his illness, I appreciated
female her care for my father, because I too cared deeply for him. I want to be a
person who cares like my mother”
STEP FOUR: PROSOCIAL ACTION AS INTRAPERSONAL GOALS 107
action finds support within the literature (Beirhoff et al. 1991; Belschak and
Den Harton 2010; Schwartz 1994).
The empathic concern step represented a sorting process wherein indi-
viduals decided what events or experiences from their past actually were
worth internalizing and making part of their identity, that is if the experi-
ences in the past were considered to be of value and would benefit someone.
If the experiences were deemed to be beneficial, then individuals checked to
see if their motivation was also truly intended for the other and not to avoid
punishment or gain reward (Batson et al. 1997), representing a selection
process of sorts. Furthermore, when each of these situations is encountered,
individuals frame or define the situation, giving it meaning, which heavily
influences their behavioral choices. So situations do not simply confront
individuals; instead, the “framing” process suggests that individuals perform
a form of editing, calling some experiences forward and pushing others to
the background (Flache and Macy 2006).
STEP FOUR: PROSOCIAL ACTION AS INTRAPERSONAL GOALS

The final step in this stage occurred when the prosocial leader had the
prosocial goals of providing for the welfare of others, based on the selection
of the empathy aroused and selected as the most important motivational
value demonstrated by reflecting on past experiences. The goal for action
itself was associated with and then projected onto a person or community
with a degree of specificity, but the goal was still largely self-serving—that is,
it was intended to enhance the individual’s ego (as discussed in Chap. 3).
The individual’s goal was in reference to the leader’s own intrapersonal
development. Moreover, at this point the goals were largely in reference to
the leader’s self-perceived abilities and skills. The goal set by the leader was
to enable a learning experience normally understood to be static, and
included norms for future behavior that would allow the leader to enhance
his or her personal development. Furthermore, these goals were typically
instrumental, with the terminal goal being the projected representative or
higher self. In the ensuing steps, these goals were present but changed from
being intrapersonal to interpersonal, and thus also there was change regard-
ing specific task assignments and normative guidelines. See Table 6.5 for
Typically, leadership theory regards goals as a means to adhere to and
exemplify leadership theories through behavior but ignores intrapersonal
components (e.g., path goal theory). Other leadership theories, as men-
tioned in Chap. 4, do consider the development of the person, and thus the
Table 6.5 Intrapersonal goals
21-year-old male “When I was asked to lead and care for this group of people, I wanted to
not only be their leader, but wanted to be their friend which is what I
believe they needed from me. I need to visit [friend’s name] who is sick”
19-year-old “So far, the most beneficial aspect of asking to lead the project was that I
female was able to develop my leadership characteristics”
21-year-old male “I have learned that sometimes I have to choose the task of the team over
my individual talent to accomplish a given goal”
19-year-old “Initially I didn’t understand what leadership would mean to me, all I
female know now is I wanted to make a difference in the lives of others, and I
intend to do just that with the group of people I am working with now.
I will get them to build the house we have been assigned”
goals in these theories may be intrapersonal (e.g., ethical leadership), but

generally goals in these theories are static and not developmental since they
are based on the normative action category, which emphasizes adherence to
a principle as demonstrated through action. But goals are understood by
other researchers as being more dynamic.
Eisenberg (2014) suggests that goals are typically tied to needs, norms,
preferences and values, and can either be used to avoid or to arrive at certain
end-states. Furthermore, goals are understood to be given focus and prior-
ity based on task value and on the ability they have to aid in self-
determination and interest (Eccles and Wigfield 2002). Self-determination
theory is also well aligned and supports the intrapersonal goal step. Self-
determination theory argues that understanding human motivation must
consider psychological needs, and these needs are necessary conditions for
psychological growth and well-being. Social contexts and individual differ-
ences can support the satisfaction of basic needs, all of which underlie the
formation and motivation of goals (Deci and Ryan 2000).
FOUNDATION ONE: PROJECTED REPRESENTATIVE (FUTURE SELF)

The developing prosocial leader began to build into the projected repre-
sentative the values, norms, rules and attitudes of the type of person he or
she wanted to be as an others-directed leader. Again, the means to arrive at
the projected representative was the intrapersonal goal, a goal which was
normally task specific. At this stage individuals began to conceptualize how
the specific actions of their behavior, represented by their intrapersonal goal,
would be conceptualized and displayed by comparing their present goal
FOUNDATION ONE: PROJECTED REPRESENTATIVE (FUTURE SELF) 109
ideas to the projected representative. This conceptualization was an attempt

to integrate the value of empathy, which was inspired by past formative
experiences, into a concrete representative or personal terminal goal.
This projected representative coalesced, integrated and illustrated their
personal desires for their future selves. The projected representative and the
intrapersonal goal were compared to each other by individuals’ internal
need for agreement or alignment, which was driven by a desire for authentic
existence or integration—discussed next. The projected representative was
represented by a group, leadership ideal, or person, but at this stage was
typically confined to the personal or to an individual, not including com-
munity or organizational goals. Typically, the projected representative was
an amalgamation of ideas, values and experiences, but was ultimately cod-
ified into a single ideal, which individuals explicitly or by implication iden-
tified as the desired personal moral identity. This projected representative
was actually an idealized self, or the leader they wanted to become, and was
present through every stage of prosocial leadership development and thus
became the penultimate goal. See Table 6.6 for sample statements of
The concept of a projected representative finds correspondence in
research literature which posits that a person’s desired or projected identity
Table 6.6 Projected representative
21-year-old male “By viewing leadership through the eyes of individuals who epitomize
the very definition of leadership from my past, I started to gain some
valuable insight into who I could become—or who I wanted to be. I
want to be a person who helps others. I want to build this house. I want
to be a Servant Leader”
20-year-old female “I am very disappointed with my previous attitudes, and want to be like
my father, who cared for my mother when she was sick. Caring for
others in need is important to become like my father, for me to feel
good about myself”
19-year-old female “Through real life examples I reached the conclusion that a good leader
must be a mediator, diplomat and source of reliability in relationship
with the employees. I understood that good leaders empower their
employees, and encourage them”
20-year-old female “Mary Catherine Bateson once said, “Insight, I believe, refers to the
depth of understanding that comes by setting experiences, yours and
mine, familiar and exotic, new and old, side by side, learning by letting
them speak to one another.” This quote not only describes the trip but
my leadership experiences since that trip”
is a motivator for action, catalyzing the formation of goals, and provides

personal meaning (Emmons 2003). Other support for the same phenomena
regarding workplace identity is seen in the work of Ashforth and Mael
(1989) and Hogg and Terry (2000), who suggest that identity and values
drive work behavior. The alignment of identity and goals is also supported
by Weaver and Agle (2002); using symbolic interactionist theory, they
found that work behavior aligns itself with the expectations placed on
assigned roles, which are based on personal identity.
Moreover, while people may have multiple identities and societal roles,
their end goal is to live a life of self-consistency (i.e., integration of values
and behaviors) where their multiple identities converge on what they per-
ceive to be a true moral identity (Walker 2004). The same connection
between desired moral identity and behaviors has also found support and
utilization from other researchers (Colby and Damon 1992; Lapsley and
Narvaez 2004). For the individuals observed in this research, morality,
motivations, values and end-states are not separate and distinct domains;
rather, all of these are integrated into who they want to become. The pursuit
of the idealized identity drove their thinking, acting and feeling through
moral problems they faced, and their choice of various social behaviors and
relationships. Further support for the need to integrate identity and action
in an individual’s life comes from Blasi’s (1983) moral identity theory,
which suggests a strong desire among people to live aligned
(or integrated) lives, wherein their behaviors are congruent with their
image of self, and that different accents in moral desires have an agentic
effect on moral behavior (Hardy and Carlo 2005).
As stated in Chap. 3, the work of Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1994)
recognizes motivational values as instrumental in nature, precipitating the
individual’s intrapersonal goals, which they consider to be terminal in
nature (e.g., Self-Transcendence or Self-Enhancement). Those leaders
who act on their affectual prioritization and personal connection to empa-
thy are motivated by the instrumental value of universalism and by appre-
ciation and protection regarding the welfare of all people and of nature.
Correspondingly, those individuals seek to enhance the welfare of people
with whom they have frequent personal contact (p. 224). For Schwartz,
those who are motivated by the instrumental values of universalism or
empathy have as an end or terminal goal transcending the self, which is
what they desire as a personal identity or as a projection of the future self.
FOUNDATION TWO: LOOKING FOR INTEGRATION 111
FOUNDATION TWO: LOOKING FOR INTEGRATION

Integration was a form of cognitive appraisal and moral reasoning, which
were instigated by the developing leaders’ need to respond to their empathy,
but also as the primary function or means to compare goals based on empathy
with the projected representative (higher self) to ensure that they were
congruent. While cognitive assessment or integration began in the empathic
concern step, there was no triangulation of goals and the projected represen-
tative with the desire to find congruency between the two using cognitive
moral assessment as was present with the reasoning found in the foundational
element of integration. Triangulation didn’t begin to happen until individuals
reached the intrapersonal goals step. Again, cognitive assessment or integra-
tion was found throughout the prosocial leadership development process. See
Table 6.7 for sample statements of individuals identified as being in this step.
Nucci’s (2004) research noted the reciprocal effect of or interplay
between an individual’s moral judgment and the construction of the self’s
identity. The phenomenon has been identified by numerous researchers,
who describe moral development as being fostered by a person’s desire to
live with consistency with what is regarded here as the idealized self
(Ashforth and Mael 1989; Becker 2013; Hardy and Carlo 2005; Komives
and Wagner 2009; Munusamy et al. 2010; Walumbwa et al. 2010).
Prosocial literature also suggests that appraisal-based emotions and goal-
directed motives do guide action, and supports the multiple steps in the
prosocial leadership development process (Damasio 2003). Paciello et al.
(2013) also suggest that high empathy levels, as seen in step three, empathic
concern, can promote an altruistic response, which, in turn, fosters mature
prosocial moral reasoning.
As mentioned in Chap. 4, most ethical decision-making models empha-
size reason in making ethical decisions, and, while it is myopic to suggest
that reasoning alone suffices for the entirety of ethical decision-making, it
Table 6.7 Integration
19-year-old female “I want to be a person who cares for others, like my father was, like my
mother was, but I am not always certain if my actions will be as good as
theirs”
21-year-old male “My coach is a very patient man, and was able to support me when I
needed it most. Being patient is important to me as a person, the person
I want to become, and I think I can get their—I hope”
certainly plays an active role in the foundational element of integration. For

example, Kidder (1995) emphasizes information gathering as a component
in ethical decision-making, which was present in the steps of empathic
concern and forming intrapersonal goals. Arguably, the other moral
decision-making models may also be present and active within individuals’
reasoning as they seek integration and congruence with their desired iden-
tities, projected representatives and goals. While the research herein cannot
demonstrate definitively the use of decision-making models in the develop-
ment of the leaders surveyed, there were tacit and direct considerations of
moral rules by individuals (Cooper 2012), critical thinking (Day 2005) and
the importance of moral rules within society (Kohlberg 1973) evidenced in
the research subjects.

This chapter provided a description of the steps in stage one of the prosocial
leadership development process. This chapter reviewed the components of
stage one, then discussed the development process and the nature of the
relationship between the steps in stage one. The chapter then defined each
of the four steps: self-awareness/antecedents, emotional awareness, empa-
thy and intrapersonal goals. Finally, a discussion described the function of
the two foundational elements that remain consistent throughout the pro-
cess: the projected representative and integration.
This stage may be best typified by leaders who desire to reach their full
potential and provide personal meaning for their lives. While in this stage,
leaders may only be concerned with their own intrapersonal development,
which resonates with Rogers’ (1959) belief that individuals have a self-
actualizing tendency to develop their latent capacity and enhance them-
selves. However, contrary to Rodgers’ belief, the emerging leader in this
step does not understand how these intrapersonal goals are dependent on
relationships. There are also resonances of Kierkegaard (2013), who argues
that the highest level of human existence is intrapersonal and motivated by
something inside, a commitment to the higher self, knowing that truth is to
be found in a subject-to-subject relationship (Storsletten and Jakobsen
2015).
Moreover, the self-assessment of formative antecedents, calling the self
to account or into intrapersonal reflection on formative values, experiences
and behaviors, runs counter to self-deception. Honest self-reflection can be
a first step to counter self-righteousness (mentioned in Chap. 2), which
REFERENCES 113
Price (2003) argues can blind a leader to the awareness of destructive

unchecked interpersonal values. These antecedent events precede intraper-
sonal goals, and what emerges is a demonstration that if leaders ignore their
past antecedents, they will not be able to adequately present and form future
personal prosocial goals.
NOTE
1. It should be noted that influence was not determined at this stage of the
development process. Individuals were identified as those with influence, and
influence was not able to be determined until stage three.
REFERENCES
Af DBGroup. (2014, May 22). High level event II – Leadership for the Africa we
want – Kigali, Wednesday 22 May 2015 [Video File]. Retrived from https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v¼zbGZaykJ5iU
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener,
E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a
member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). Image theory: Principles, goals, and plans in
decision making. Acta Psychologica, 66(3), 201–220.
Campbell, S. M., Ulrich, C. M., & Grady, C. (2016). A broader understanding of
moral distress. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(12), 2–9.
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral
commitment. New York: Free Press.
Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and

leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence
constructive and destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3),
386–401.
Round Rock: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Day, L. (2005). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies. Boston:
Cengage Learning.
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227–268.
Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation,
moral judgment, and moral behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature
(pp. 129–148). Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association.
Eisenberg, N. (2014). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior (PLE: Emotion).
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Multidimensionality of prosocial behavior.
In Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 17–39). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. (2003). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality
in personality. New York: Guilford Press.
Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2006). Learning and framing in social exchange. In
Solidarity and prosocial behavior (pp. 45–60). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hamachek, D. (2000). Dynamics of self-understanding and self-knowledge: Acqui-
sition, advantages, and relation to emotional intelligence. The Journal of Human-
istic Counseling, 38(4), 230.
Hannah, S., Avolio, B., & Walumbwa, F. (2011). Relationships between authentic
leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-Social behaviors. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 21(4), 555–578.
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Religiosity and prosocial behaviors in adolescence:
The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34(2), 231–
249.
REFERENCES 115
Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Think-
ing about the future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 593–620.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lindenberg, S., Fetchenhauer, D., Flache, A., & Buunk, B. (2006). Solidarity and
prosocial behavior: A framing approach. In Solidarity and prosocial behavior
(pp. 3–19). New York: Springer.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2003). Leadership processes and follower self-identity.
Koehler.
McNulty, S. E., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1994). Identity negotiation in roommate
relationships: The self as architect and consequence of social reality. Journal of
Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of controlled
interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9(4), 498.
Nucci, L. (2004). Reflections on the moral self construct. In D. K. Lapsley &
D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self, and identity (pp. 111–132).
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
As developed in the clientcentered framework (Vol. 3, pp. 184–256). New York:
McGraw-Hill
Scherer, K. R., Shorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (Eds.). (2001). Appraisal processes in
emotion: Theory, methods, research. Canary: Oxford University Press.
337–349.
Tichy, N. M., & Cohen, E. (1997). The leadership engine. New York: HarperCollins.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 25–52.
77–97.
Wheatley, M. (1993). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Yap, A., & Tong, E. M. W. (2009). The appraisal rebound effect: Cognitive
appraisals on the rebound. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9),
1208–1219.
CHAPTER 7
Stage Two: Community and Group

Commitment
INTRODUCTION
Methodological individualism suggests that “all social phenomena can be
explained only in terms of individuals and their interaction” (Udehn 2002,
p. 480), giving no consideration to the effect of the structures or cultures
created by those individuals. Individualism of this sort is, and for the
foreseeable future will be, at the very core of American culture. Americans
are convinced of the sacredness and power of the individual (Bellah et al.
2007). But research showing the individual acting as a solitary agent,
divorced from influences coming from the outside, has never been achieved
(Hodgson 2007). Yet, the belief in the sacred individual persists, leading to
a rationally individualistic orientation within ethical decision-making
models (De Cremer et al. 2009; Turner et al. 2002) (mentioned in
Chap. 4). The individualistic assumption is also well aligned with the
governing economic assumption of the individualized rational decision-
maker (Etzioni 1991; Ulrich 2002).
Leadership theories have also been influenced by methodological indi-
vidualism, wherein most theories are dedicated to and champion the idea of
the individual, as indicated by a focus on a leader’s behavior, personality or
style (Edwards 2015). It is difficult to tell if the presence of leader-centricity
within leadership theories is a deliberate or tacit shift away from systems-
theory and holistic approaches; regardless, it is a shift away. Numerous
issues arise from this overemphasis on individualism in leadership studies
and include the following: individual actions are difficult to describe without

118 7 STAGE TWO: COMMUNITY AND GROUP COMMITMENT
reference to structures, any distributed cognition compromises the notion

of leader-centrality and administrative or organizational functions of leaders
are typically ignored (Evers and Lakomski 2013). The reality in practice,
Gans (1988) suggests, is that people may not make distinctions between
leaders and the institutions they lead (p. 41). Gan believes that leadership
literature is replete with the notion of the autonomous leader, even though
no leader is able to achieve success in isolation from others.
Despite the overwhelming presence of individualism as a value within
American culture and correspondingly within leadership theories, prosocial
leaders are able to avoid, at least to some degree, being confined by
individualism. Prosocial leaders recognize their commitments to communi-
ties they are a part of or in some cases not a member of but want to serve,
and in turn reevaluate their personal intrapersonal highly individualized
goals, recasting them to be interpersonal goals.
two of the prosocial leadership development process. Specifically, this chap-
ter reviews the components of stage two, then discusses the development
process and the nature of the relationship between steps in stage two. The
chapter then defines each of the four steps in this stage: group/community
commitment, diversity/challenge, interpersonal goals and altruistic aware-
ness (empathy). A discussion also describes the function of the two foun-
dational elements that remain consistent through the process: the projected
representative and integration. The chapter resolves with a short discussion
of and reflection on the critical components of stage two.
Again, not every leader in this research developed into a prosocial leader.
From the 153 documents assessed for content, 72 individuals were identi-
fied as moving through stage one, and 63 moved through stage two.
Primarily those leaders who stayed in stage one did not recognize them-
selves as part of a group or community or, in recognizing their commit-
ments, believed that the challenges presented in implementing their
intrapersonal goals made their projected representatives or idealized-selves
become an unlikely reality. But leaders who moved into stage two were
leaders who did ultimately develop into prosocial leaders and can be typified
by the following four steps in the developmental process: group/commu-
nity commitment, diversity challenge, altruism (empathy) and, finally, inter-
personal goals. These four steps contribute to the two foundational
elements, found throughout the prosocial leadership developmental pro-
cess: the projected representative and integration. Each of these steps has
INTRODUCTION 119
Table 7.1 Components of stage two
Step five Group community The individual’s self-awareness is now expanded into
commitment other-awareness, which includes a commitment to a
group, community or organization
Step Diversity/ The leader’s commitment to a group is to one in which
Six challenge there is familiarity with shared common values, beliefs
in-group and norms (in-group) or to one they are committed to
Six but with whom they do not share common values,
out-group beliefs and norms (out-group)
Step seven Interpersonal goals These goals move away from self-absorbed or self-
serving ends and include the needs of others in the
group being served
Step eight Altruistic aware- This occurs when the leader recognizes that the specific
ness (empathy) intrapersonal goals from stage one may not be shared
but is committed to help even at personal cost, or
despite a lack of reward
Foundational Projected repre- Still a formative ideal, which becomes a terminal goal,
elements sentative (PR) and ultimately the desired personal identity. The indi-
vidual begins to consider how his or her personal iden-
tity may be shared or may even include others within the
group to which he or she is committed. Thus this stage
emphasizes the reality that the PR can be represented by
a group or organization
Integration Now, integration continues to triangulate intrapersonal
goals, but reasoning moves into engaging others in
dialogue and listening in order to determine existing
group values and expressed needs and goals of the
group, leading to an ultimate formation of interpersonal
goals. Reasoning is mediated through altruism, since
there is a growing realization that action may need to be
devoid of intrapersonal goals, or that those goals may
need to be modified
distinct characteristics. The definitions for each step are provided in

Table 7.1.
Again, the four steps within stage two occurred chronologically, with
individuals’ becoming aware of their commitments to a community always
being followed by a determination whether they were members of the
group or outsiders. Individuals then began to form new interpersonal
goals, which were compared to their existing projected representatives
upon which the interpersonal goals were evaluated through the ideal of
proposed altruistic acts. Again, it is important to note that the steps within
Community commitment Projected Representative
is part of
is cause of
Interpersonal Goals
is cause of Empathy
is cause of
is associated with is associated with
Diversity/Challenge (In-Group) is cause of
is cause of
is cause of
Altruistic Awareness
is associated with
Diversity/Challenge (Out-Group)
Integrity
Fig. 7.1 Relationships of steps in stage two
the stage have a degree of concurrence of results, conjunction of timing and

interface. However, each step also is recognizable as distinct. The relation-
ship between these elements is seen in Fig. 7.1.
STEP FIVE: GROUP COMMUNITY COMMITMENT

Individuals who moved into stage two of the prosocial leadership develop-
ment process became aware of their commitments to groups, an awareness
represented by membership, familial ties, a verbal commitment, expecta-
tions of others based on their role or a personal commitment. Individuals
were moved to awareness through recognizing that their intrapersonal goals
must be actualized in a real group or community. In stage two the nascent
prosocial leader began to form concrete ideas (ideals) as to how their
leadership would look based on the community or familiar group to
which they were committed. The awareness in this step was like that in
the initial step one, wherein there was an honest assessment of the contex-
tual elements. In this step individuals’ self-awareness was expanded into
other-awareness, and thus they were exposed to members’ group and
community goals. This came as a shock to many individuals since the
STEP FIVE: GROUP COMMUNITY COMMITMENT 121
Table 7.2 Step five group community commitment
20-year-old “Whatever encouragement I received from my past to lead this group of

female people I am committed to now, it is apparent to me that my past experiences
were not as important as what this group is expecting”
21-year-old “As I began to reflect on how my leadership would help members in the
male group helping, I began to realize how my idea of leadership should be, was
not only from how others served me in the past, but what the group was
expecting of me”
prosocial leaders believed that through their helping they would actualize
the idealized self (projected representative). While not necessarily a com-
prehensive understanding, the developing prosocial leaders also became
aware of accompanying structures, organizations, groups or movements.
In many instances the leaders could even describe the importance and
expectations of the structures, organizations, groups or movements. The
individuals expressed an understanding that desiring relationships was a
natural orientation and that these relationships were changing in nature,
and thus they needed to adapt to maintain those relationships. See Table 7.2
for sample statements of individuals identified as being in this step.
Support for the phenomena found in this step comes from Loulis and
Kuczynski (1997), whose research suggests that relationships are developed
from a series of interactions over an extended period of time, anchored in
psychological experiences and grounded in relationships that are always
changing. The psychological nature of relationships and their anchoring in
experiences suggest that the individuals in this research are gaining personal
meaning from their relationships by drawing from psychological perspec-
tives, which by their nature have emotional aspects. Thus, the presence of
emotional intelligence may in part explain the phenomena within this step.
Emotional intelligence suggests that certain individuals have developed
or have the ability to self-regulate their emotions, and, with the understand-
ing of their emotional connection to others, have the ability to help with the
emotional regulation of others as a means to achieve their personal as well as
group goals (Colman 2015). Research indicates a relationship between TL
and emotional intelligence, specifically that TL leaders do understand their
roles regarding the self/other agreement as a vital aspect of leadership
(Sosik and Megerian 1999). This research supports the idea of leaders
being aware of and needing the ability to connect to groups they may or
may not be members of, as is seen in step five of this stage.
Prosocial leaders have the ability to see past their own individualistic
tendencies by not regarding social phenomena in terms of their individual
interaction alone or by not disregarding structures and culture. Instead, the
perspective of the prosocial leader is more in line with Giddens’ (1991)
structuration theory, which recognizes that an individual’s actions shape
social structures, and social structures shape or constrain individual agency.
For Giddens, individuals actually seek out structures or organizations to
give their actions meaning. These individuals use an organization’s
resources and follow its rules, which in turn affects others and recreates
the structure of the organization. For Giddens, this dialectic between
organizations and individuals results in the production and reproduction
of social life.
The reality of this theme that emerged from the data finds support from
research findings suggesting that committed citizenship in groups or orga-
nizations creates more intentional and concrete forms of behavior in regards
to others in the group (Amato 1983; Colby and Damon 1992; De Cremer
et al. 2009; Ellemers et al. 1998).
STEP SIX: DIVERSITY/CHALLENGE

In step six, leaders were faced with the challenge that came from either a
group they were committed to, and familiar with, or a group they were
committed to but felt as if they were an outsider in or only had newly
formed or tenuous connections to. Specifically, the leaders recognized their
commitments to groups where there was familiarity (e.g., family, school,
team) and with which they had shared common values, beliefs, norms and
assigned roles (in-group), or to groups with which they did not share
common values, beliefs, and norms, and in which they played uncertain
roles (out-group).
The in-group, while being more familiar, presented a challenge because
individuals believed that their leadership development and accompanying
behaviors might indicate that they had to assume a new role within the
group and possibly challenge existing norms. The prosocial leaders emerg-
ing from stage one were working from this idealized view of who they
needed to become and the corresponding demands and expectations of
interpersonal goals. With a proposed new role and/or challenge of group
norms, questions arose for the leaders specifically about their competency
regarding their new roles, whether they had the right personality traits,
whether they would be accepted in their new roles, or whether a change
STEP SIX: DIVERSITY/CHALLENGE 123
in role would move them out of the group because they would be challeng-
ing accepted group roles. This awareness emerged from engaging with
members of the group; from reflection upon preassigned roles, values, and
norms; and from their intrapersonal goals, which now could appear self-
serving.
Other developing prosocial leaders were committed to a group in which
their membership was new or developing, or was not affirmed; there was a
great deal of uncertainty over which values, behaviors, roles and norms of
the group were in agreement with their own. These leaders faced unique
challenges. Here they feared being labeled as a threat to the group, being
stereotyped, possibility being excluded from helping and ultimately being in
danger of not reaching their idealized potential. This awareness may have
come from experiences with similar groups; through engaging with mem-
bers of the group; or from those who had knowledge of the group’s existing
roles, values, behaviors and norms. The leaders were not only faced with the
challenge of not being accepted into the group but internally opened
themselves up to the possibility of seeing that their intrapersonal goals
might be self-serving, or unrealistic. The individuals may have then
projected onto the group negative views, or become worried that negative
or prejudicial views might be projected onto them as outsiders. See
step.
Evidence exists to suggest that individuals tend to see similarities
between themselves and members of the groups they are in and dissimilar-
ities between themselves and groups they are not members of—out-groups
(Eisenberg et al. 2010). Research also suggests that in-group and out-group
classifications result in associated biases and prejudices, which are automatic
and outside the immediate control of the individual (Fiske 2000); this
Table 7.3 Step six: diversity/challenge
22-year-old “I recognize that now what I am supposed to be doing to help lead this
female community, but I don’t feel as if I know where to begin, even though I have
been a member of it for my whole life. What if they don’t accept me”?
19-year-old “I am committed to act and help this group, and I understand what this
male group needs, but it is not going to be fun to actually do it, I feel like an
adopted child and not sure if I belong”
20-year-old “Being an outsider is no fun. No fun at all. I am sure that they won’t accept
male me as a leader, and if I can’t serve them, how am I supposed to become like
my dad who was caring”?
supports and explains the differences in perception regarding in-groups

versus out-groups by the individuals in this study.
Other complementary research indicates that individuals’ prosocial
choices vary depending on whether they consider themselves to be part of
an in-group or an out-group (Batson et al. 2002). The challenge faced by
these emerging prosocial leaders who sought to extend care for those
outside their group might be more challenging since adults do not easily
empathize with people they do not like (Gutsell and Inzlicht 2010), and/or
may also feel vulnerable and at risk of being stigmatized by the out-group
(Batson et al. 1997). Yet, it is widely recognized that diversity and integra-
tion into out-groups is an important part of human development (Hartog
et al. 1999; Komives and Wagner 2009).
Alternatively, Fiske (1992) may provide a frame for understanding some
of the anxiety regarding roles within groups, suggesting that individuals
who understand the need for relationships in a group choose one of four
specific models for relating to other individuals. Model one, communal
sharing, holds that people are to be treated as kin, family or equals who
do not differ from one another. The second model, authority ranking,
regards people according to generational differences. The third is equality
matching, where there is no authority and each person is entitled to the
same consideration. The fourth is the market model, where each person is
understood as being able to make a significant transaction, and where these
relationships are short in nature. In step six, it would appear that prosocial
leaders who move past their fears and into further development use some-
thing akin to the equality-matching model, in that the prosocial leaders
move beyond role considerations to helping actions.
A similar perspective to that of equality matching is offered by Oliner
(1992), who conducted research on the help given to Jews in Nazi Europe.
Oliner determined that rescuers helped without consideration of in-group
or out-group, but instead operated from a broader category of humanity to
which they considered every human belonged, thus creating a third group,
an us-group. The people who helped self-reported having concerns about
global human rights and exhibited a willingness to contribute to global
needs, thus perceiving equality between members of the group in need of
help and the rest of humanity (McFarland et al. 2012).
The recognition of an intrinsic human value underpinning the motiva-
tion for the creation of an alternative in-group (us-group) is described by
both Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1999). Defined most recently by
Schwartz, the motivational values of benevolence and universalism describe
STEP SEVEN: INTERPERSONAL GOALS 125
the motivation behind the us-group dynamic that occurs. The person who
seeks to serve an in-group, or be accepted into an out-group as a leader
(thus becoming part of the group), may be able to be identified as acting out
of the motivational state or value of benevolence. “Benevolence is preserv-
ing and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent
personal contact (the ‘in-group’)” (p. 224). And those who create a third
group, or us-group, are motivated by universalism: “Universalism. Under-
standing, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all
people and for nature” (p. 224). Swartz understood these two motivations
to have as a terminal goal self-transcendence (see Fig. 3.1). Thus, the
in-group/out-group distinction may still apply, but in the case of their
development, prosocial leaders act from the value of benevolence, which
indicates that they care for their in-group or alternatively for those outside
their typical group but apply the value of universalism.
STEP SEVEN: INTERPERSONAL GOALS

The awareness of the possible-self (ideal self)—derived in part from the
intrapersonal goals that were an outcome of stage one—was challenged here
in stage two. Such intrapersonal goals, when confronted by the commit-
ment to a group or community, appeared self-serving or unachievable, since
the intrapersonal goals had to be mediated through the group, and the
group’s goals largely pertained to the group’s needs, which at times might
have contradicted the leaders’ intrapersonal goals. Emerging leaders com-
pared their intrapersonal goals, which they regarded as part of their future
idealized selves or projected representatives, to the needs of the group and
realized that if they were to lead the group, their goals might have to be
expanded or modified to also include the needs of others. Leaders deter-
mined that their new goals, which were modified to better fit the group’s
needs, might involve less or, in some cases no, self-enhancement. The
individuals may also have become aware that the intrapersonal goals from
stage one were a form of reward and an ultimate goal, which would
contradict the forming ideal of altruism, or helping without reference to
reward. In many cases the new goals they developed were based on inter-
action with the needs of the community, or interpersonal. See Table 7.4 for
Research suggests that individuals can use a strategy for attaining per-
sonal goals that involves forging friendships, behaving nicely to others and
cooperating. These individuals can be described as having a self-oriented
Table 7.4 Interpersonal goals
22-year-old female “So what am I to do now? What the groups wants, and what I want
to become may end up being two different deals. When I compare
the goals for the group, and my personal goals, I may have to give
up my goals”
19-year-old male “I talked with the group, and what they want was not what I was
thinking at all. But, I want to help them, I just have to rethink what
this means for me personally”
20-year-old female “I guess what the group wants means I won’t get what I want, but
that may be what service actually means”
19-year-old-male “As a group, we had to convince ourselves and the church com-
munity that our goal was collective and could only be reached if
everyone involved was engaged and active. For some of us,
including me, I had to rethink my own leadership goals”
goal attainment but use people to attain their personal goals (Hawley
2014). The prosocial leader recognizes and avoids this temptation of
using people as a means to an end, or what Buber (1970) refers to as
treating people as objects.
Earlier in the book we considered how leaders can be self-serving; other
leadership research reinforces the notion that leaders use power to steer
groups towards desired personal outcomes (goals), using their power in the
service of self-interest. For example, Maner and Mead (2010) found that
most leaders support group goals, but leaders who experience instability in
the hierarchy, and are high in their own personal need to dominate, prior-
itize their own power over group goals, withholding information, excluding
highly skilled group members and preventing positive individual outcomes.
The indication is that the need for personal power in the leader determines
whether the leader will act in self-serving ways when leading a group and
achieving goals (Rus et al. 2010).
Graham (1995), referencing Kohlberg’s (1971) moral development
stages, argues that different leadership styles produce different sorts of
normative motivation among followers, affecting organizational success.
Leadership that appeals to followers’ self-interests is associated with ethics
derived from the leader and external clues (pre-conventional); and leader-
ship focusing on interpersonal relationships and their networks offers clues
influencing followers’ ethical judgments (conventional). Finally, leadership
that focuses on serving others is associated with ethics derived from
both interpersonal relationships and broader societal expectations
STEP EIGHT: ALTRUISM (EMPATHY) 127
(post-conventional). Leadership that focuses on serving others, being

post-conventional, aligns well with prosocial leaders coming out of stage
two, who have moved from intrapersonal to interpersonal goals. This
also aligns well with Hernandez’s (2008) theory presented in Chap. 1,
which also conceptualizes a model of leadership that contains interper-
sonal and institutional trust alongside moral courage and that fosters a
commitment of personal responsibility in followers to care for the well-
being of society and the organization.
STEP EIGHT: ALTRUISM (EMPATHY)

Here the leaders recognized that the specific intrapersonal goals from stage
one might not be able to be actualized or might even be self-serving; yet
they were still committed to help even at personal cost, or despite a lack of
reward. Therefore, step eight involved the inclusion of altruism, which is the
intentional and eventual act(s) of selfless behavior for the benefit of the
other, even if it involves personal cost. Altruism became part of the reason-
ing (integration) process and considered how empathetic motivations,
which became internalized (see Fig. 7.1), were mediated through altruistic
desires that helped form new interpersonal goals to address community
needs. Because of the selfless nature of the final portion of this step—letting
go or adapting intrapersonal goals to fit group or community needs, which
enabled the formation of interpersonal goals in dialogue with either a
familiar group or unfamiliar community—trust could be cultivated between
the parties. This step could lead to role adaptation or to support or inclusion
of the outsider. See Table 7.5 for sample statements of individuals identified
as being in this step.
Batson’s (2010) understanding of the decision point individuals face
when confronted with a real-life situation (see Fig. 3.2) in which an indi-
vidual needs help and the helper must struggle against self-centered goals
may be the best explanation for this step. As Batson suggests, individuals
Table 7.5 Altruism (empathy)
20-year-old female “I feel accepted by this group, I think it is because they feel like I
care, and I do!”
19-year-old male “I am willing to give up my goals for the sake of this community.
I have always been committed to this community. I can see how
they need help, and I hurt with them”
have to decide if they will avoid punishment or seek to receive a reward by

helping others, both of which are egotistical. In this case, prosocial leaders,
when confronted by the apparent self-serving nature of their intrapersonal
goals, continue to move forward, despite the possibility of punishment from
the group or community and with no expectation of reward, making their
proposed new action, represented in interpersonal goals, altruistic.
Research on the role and effects of self-sacrificial leadership illustrates
many of the phenomena observed in these research individuals. Research
has shown that self-sacrificial leaders facilitate individual and organizational
adaptations to changing environments (Choi and Mai-Dalton 1998) and
organizational commitment (De Cremer et al. 2004). Van Knippenberg
and Van Knippenberg (2005) note that, to the extent a self-sacrificing
leader’s behavior is representative of the group, the leader’s effectiveness
increases; specifically the leader’s group- oriented motivation and charisma
increase. This may illuminate why the prosocial leader began to be trusted
and gained adherence and acceptance in the group towards the end of this
step. Other studies suggest that self-sacrificing leaders increased both their
own self-esteem (De Cremer et al. 2006) and the prosocial behaviors of
their followers (De Cremer et al. 2009).

In this stage, the projected representative was still a formative ideal but
remained a terminal goal, and ultimately the desired personal identity. But
in stage two, the individuals began to consider how their personal identity
might be shared, or even how to include others within the groups they were
committed to serve. Thus, this stage emphasized the reality that the
projected representative or idealized self could include or be represented
by a group, community or organization, and yet remain a personal identity.
Yet, this did not diminish other aspects of the projected representative, such
as the leadership ideal or the person who is an exemplar. Typically, the
projected representative was an amalgamation of ideas, values and experi-
ences, but ultimately it was codified into a single ideal that the individual
explicitly or implicitly identified as his or her desired personal identity. See
step.
As before, the individuals’ identities played a significant role in determin-
ing motivations and ultimately the terminal goals to which they would seek
to align their behaviors. However, in this stage, the projected representative
FOUNDATION TWO: LOOKING FOR INTEGRATION 129
21-year-old male “I feel like I have multiple personality disorder. I had a vision of the
leader I would become through this program, but now my vision
must change since I internalized the group’s goals. Can the two
become one?”
20-year-old male “I was watching Star Trek last night and realized my personal goals
are like the Star Ship Enterprise before I met this group, and now I
am on the Borg ship! Can I have both my personal growth and
what the group wants from me? It appears they are both part of me
moving forward”
began to become more communal than in previous stages, as if the individ-

uals were beginning to understand that they must share or broaden their
identity. While individuals have multiple identities, which can be prioritized
(Walker 2004), here the individuals appeared to share an identity with
members of the group, or the group’s identities.
Hogg and Terry (2000) found that leaders are evaluated for group fit
based on a group prototype and not according to a leadership prototype,
which is suggestive of why the prosocial leader was included into the group.
Hogg and Terry also suggest that charismatic leaders can shift followers’
identities from individual to group identities (see also Bass 1985), indicating
that existing leadership within the group or community may influence the
forming prosocial leaders to shift from individualized goals and identity to a
collective group identity. Prosocial leaders’ incorporating their identities
into a collective identity and allowing themselves to be influenced by a
group’s perceptions, evaluations and understanding of what was needed,
resulted in greater leadership effectiveness (Lord and Brown 2003).

In this stage integration was still an internal form of reasoning triangulating
goals, empathic values and the projected representative or idealized self. But
here integration moved into engaging others in dialogue and listening in
order to determine existing values, expressed needs and goals of the group.
The reasoning in dialogue constructs with others the formation of new,
interpersonal goals. The reasoning was mediated through altruism, since
there was a growing realization that action might need to be devoid of
intrapersonal goals, or that those goals might just need to be modified. See
21-year-old-female “I think it what I want to do for this group will help. I do care, but
now I am going to have to figure out how to help them first”
20-year-old female “Thinking through my commitment again, I am certain that the
most important thing is the group and their needs. I keep seeing
that one woman crying. I am not sure what that means for me, but
I will move forward and figure it out”
20-year-old male “I now understand there are differences in all of us, and although
we might all be different, it is okay, and even good, to associate
with people who are different than you. Helping them out as they
need it, does not mean you need to let go of your own goals”
The aforementioned research that supports integration applies here as

well. The reciprocity regarding identity and interpersonal goals was identical
to what was described earlier in the process (Nucci 2004), but now with the
addition of altruism, which was included into an understanding of the
idealized self. But what is unique to integration in this step is that empathy
became more internalized and acted as a means to regulate both thinking
and adherence to interpersonal goals. The internalization of empathy as part
of the prosocial development process and rational framework has been
established as a motivator for others directed action (Damasio 2003;
Paciello et al. 2013).

This chapter provided the reader with a description of the steps in stage two
of the prosocial leadership development process. Specifically, this chapter
reviewed the components of stage two, then discussed the development
process and the nature of the relationship between the steps in stage two.
The chapter then defined each of the four steps in this stage: group com-
munity commitment, diversity/challenge, interpersonal goals and altruistic
awareness (empathy). Finally, there was a discussion concerning the func-
tion of the two foundational elements that remain consistent through the
process: the projected representative and integration.
What is of particular interest is the altruism that becomes active in this
stage, being referenced by the individual early in step seven but not fully
realized until step eight. The motivational values of empathy and altruism,
active in the leader, were based on very little action and were largely
REFERENCES 131
cognitive, but the formation of goals was constructed in dialogue with

members of the group the leader was committed to serve. Individuals
appeared to have their first cathartic experience, in that they had to confront
their intrapersonal goals, their new roles as leaders and the possibility of
their being ostracized. But, since the process was largely cognitive, it would
suggest that the individuals had not really risked themselves or become
vulnerable; however, confronting personal vulnerability is where they
begin in the next stage.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (1983). Helping behavior in urban and rural environments: Field
studies based on a taxonomic organization of helping episodes. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 45, 571–586.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics,
13(3), 26–40.
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and
action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the
group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656–1666.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (2007).
Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Scribner’s Sons.
Colman, A. M. (2015). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Journal, 25(5), 466–475.
De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. (2006). Self-
sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification
matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 233.
Edwards, G. (2015). Community as leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-related
responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup
relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Van Den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus
team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 717–730.
terly, 1(04), 355–365.
Evers, C. W., & Lakomski, G. (2013). Methodological individualism, educational
administration, and leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and His-
tory, 45(2), 159–173.
Fiske, S. T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between
the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 30(3), 299–322.
Gans, H. J. (1988). Middle American individualism: The future of liberal democracy.
New York: Free Press.
Routledge.
Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts
reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 841–845.
Hawley, P. H. (2014). Evolution, prosocial behavior, and altruism. In Prosocial
development: A multidimensional approach (p. 43). New York: Oxford University
Press.
REFERENCES 133
Hodgson, G. M. (2007). Meanings of methodological individualism. Journal of

Economic Methodology, 14(2), 211–226.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get
away with it in the study of moral development. New York: Academic.
ships, 14(4), 441–461.
McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A
measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103(5), 830.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Oliner, S. P. (1992). Altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence
and performance the role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership
perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24(3), 367–390.
304–311.
CHAPTER 8
Stage Three: Courage and Action
INTRODUCTION
In 350 BCE Aristotle defined courage as the balance between cowardice
and rashness, believing that courage is expressed somewhere between the
two, acting as a goal, and as such playing a role in regulating behavior.
Courage was, therefore, both an end and a means. Courage to act, Aristotle
writes, “Is the first of the human qualities because it is the quality which
guarantees the others” (Rowe and Broadie 2002, p. 31). But Aristotle’s
depiction of courage largely describes the courage needed in warfare, when
a person must face his or her own death, not the courage that is needed
when an individual is challenged to do the right moral thing. The courage to
do the right thing morally despite such temptations as illegal behavior,
professional or personal misconduct, including lying, irresponsibility, or
unfairness, is regarded as moral courage (Kidder 2005). Despite not facing
a life-or-death situation, people who cannot act courageously to effect a
good or moral result despite obstacles can become deeply distressed.
Moral distress occurs when individuals recognize the morally right
course of action they ought to take but organizational structures or other
individuals with power create barriers against such actions, leaving the
would-be leaders in distress. And, if individuals fail to act when these
obstacles are in place, they then experience even deeper distress, reacting
to their own powerlessness combined with the obligation placed on their
conscience to act (Campbell et al. 2016). Moral distress has real impacts on
people within organizations. While, research on moral distress has mainly

136 8 STAGE THREE: COURAGE AND ACTION
focused on medical professionals who face moral distress routinely, the

research has broad applications for other workplace environments. Moral
distress occurs in medical professionals for many reasons, including how
improvements in technology create moral dilemmas in extending and saving
life, and how limitations to access or in patient and personal care can lead to
patient apathy (Kälvemark et al. 2004). Researchers have determined that
moral distress has direct negative impacts on healthcare providers and on
quality of care, workplace satisfaction, physical health and staff retention
(Burston and Tuckett 2013). But moral distress is also recognized in other
contexts, broadening this human phenomenon.
The Korean word han (恨) has an etymology woven out of the cultural
sufferings of the Korean people, who have undergone decades of occupa-
tion, hopelessness and suffering. Added to this, their personal and corporate
sufferings were countered by the constant hope of the freedom that would
come from stopping the injustice(s). Bannon (2008) translates han as a
sorrow caused by suffering, injustice and persecution, a dull ache in the soul,
a resignation, but a yearning for vengeance along with a refusal to seek
vengeance. To relieve moral distress, individuals must act in ways that are
successful in addressing the injustice. They must act, but, to do so, they
must have moral courage (Jameton 1992).
three of the prosocial leadership development process. Specifically, this
chapter reviews the components of stage three, then discusses the develop-
ment process and the nature of the relationship between the steps in stage
three. The chapter then defines each of the three steps in this stage: moral
courage, lived experiences and goal coalescence. A discussion also describes
the function of the two foundational elements that remain consistent
throughout the process: the projected representative and integration. The
chapter resolves with a short discussion of and reflection on the critical
components of stage three.
Again, not everyone in this research developed into a prosocial leader;
those who are included in this research had similar developmental experi-
ences that resulted in altruistic action and future personal development,
roughly following each stage as observed in the prosocial leadership devel-
opment process. In fact, many leaders were not able to move from stage
two. From the 153 documents assessed for content, 32 individuals were
identified as moving through stage three. Primarily, those leaders who
stayed in stage two were not able to face their fears, or were overcome by
ambivalence due to their moral distress and could not display moral
INTRODUCTION 137
Table 8.1 Components of stage three
Step nine Moral courage A response away from governing fears generated from
feelings of vulnerability, failure or similar threat, and
towards what is deemed as good
Step ten Lived experiences A shift away from learning through cognition and
towards a concrete depiction of instar/interpersonal
goals
Step eleven Goal coalescence Here both intrapersonal and interpersonal goals become
connected through the individual experience and are
understood as complementary
Foundational Projected repre- This stage emphasizes the reality that the PR can be
elements sentative (PR) represented by both a group and organization, but more
importantly and with more clarity through lived experi-
ences. While the PR is still a codification of ideas, values
and experiences, here the person begins to use his or her
own recent prosocial experiences as an exemplar
Integration Here, integration is still an internal form of reasoning,
triangulating goals, empathic vales and the PR or ideal-
ized self. Now, integration continues to triangulate
intrapersonal goals, but the reasoning moves into ensur-
ing that altruism is active within interpersonal goals,
ensuring the welfare of others
courage. But leaders who moved into stage three, leaders who did develop
into prosocial leaders, can be typified by their following three steps in the
developmental process: moral courage, lived experiences and goal coales-
cence. Again, these three steps contribute to the development of two
foundational elements found throughout the prosocial leadership develop-
mental process: the projected representative and integration. Moreover, the
presence of empathy and altruism plays a significant and ongoing role in
stage three. Each of these steps has distinct characteristics. The definitions
for each step are provided in Table 8.1.
Again, the three steps in stage three occurred chronologically: first,
individuals acted out of moral courage; next, they embraced actual lived
experiences; and, finally, they experienced goal coalescence. Through the
lived experiences, which involved altruistic service to a group to ensure
members’ welfare, individuals then were able to understand the role and
interdependence of both intrapersonal and interpersonal goals, the latter
supported by altruistic action. Both intrapersonal and interpersonal goals
were compared with the projected representative, which was motivated by
internalized empathy and altruism. Again, it is important to note that the
is associated with
Moral Courage Projected Representative
is part of
Interpersonal Goals
is cause of
is associated with
Altruism
Actual Lived Experiences is part of is associated with
is part of is cause of
is associated with
is cause of
Empathy
is cause of is cause of
is part of is associated with Integrity
Goal Coalescence Intrapersonal Goals
Fig. 8.1 Relationships of steps in stage three
steps within the stage have a degree of concurrence of results, conjunction

of timing and interface. However, each step also is recognizable as distinct.
The relationship between these elements is seen in Fig. 8.1.
STEP NINE: MORAL COURAGE

Individuals who moved into stage three confronted vulnerability or the fear
of a group to which they did not feel they belonged, or they experienced
anxiety from assuming a new role in a group they were familiar with or of
which they were already members. Before taking this step in the prosocial
leadership development process, numerous individuals questioned or feared
losing their self-identity. Despite their fear, they moved towards the lived
experiences, acting altruistically, sometimes with few resources and with an
unmeasured or untested capability, or without certainty about what would
happen. Such individuals moved forward in action, with tacit reference to
the projected representative or idealized self. These individuals were more
likely to move forward if there was a good possibility that the lived experi-
ence would be able to provide an opportunity for them become their
idealized selves or their projected representatives. The members of the
groups the individual was committed to altruistically serve recognized the
moral courage of the leader, and the altruistic action by the leader fostered
credibility in the group, and the leader gained intrapersonal and
STEP NINE: MORAL COURAGE 139
Table 8.2 Step nine: moral courage
20-year-old “I know what this group needs from their leader, and I know it presents a
female challenge to me personally, but I cannot refuse to take the challenge, I must
act but this is real, and that is what scares me”
20-year-old “The thing I learned was that leaders must take initiative for the things the
male group wants to do and this requires courage. Even if the group does not
support your goals and what you want will not be accomplished”
19-year-old “I want to help my friends, I consider them my friends, but what will happen
male if I do act? I guess it does not matter, they need help, and it may change our
relationship but I need to help them, even if I am a little nervous”
19-year-old “In order for me as a leader to successfully accomplish my goals I have to
female take risks and put myself out on the line even if I fear that people will either
support or reject my ideas. But helping them is more important than my
personal goals”
interpersonal meaning. See Table 8.2 for sample statements of individuals

identified as being in this step.
Lopez et al. (2003) defined moral courage as “the expression of personal
views and values in the face of dissension and rejection” (p. 187) and “when
an individual stands up to someone with power over him or her (e.g., boss)
for the greater good” (p. 187). Moral courage and its corresponding
vulnerability occur when individuals, despite feeling threatened, move for-
ward beyond their capability and resources (Woodard 2004). This research
describes the nature of the struggle of such prosocial leaders in step nine.
But those who act out of moral courage first must move through their
own interpersonal fears of vulnerability. Resource limitations, doubts about
personal capabilities and fear of group reprisal, or of being ostracized by a
group they wish to serve, all contribute to a feeling of personal vulnerability.
Vulnerabilities are created when individuals perceive their environment to
be uncontrollable, unpredictable, dangerous and disgusting (Armfield
2006). Thus, vulnerability creates tension between a person’s moral inten-
tion and moral behavior, based on situational factors that challenge moral
courage (Comer and Vega 2005; De Hoog et al. 2005). This may account
for prosocial leaders’ willingness to move towards altruistic action despite
feeling that they are losing their own identities. The tension or
misalignment of moral identity and action, as stated earlier in this chapter,
may cause moral distress. The tension is created by moral distress fused to
empathic concern, which may result in altruistic action, both in wanting to
help and in wanting to avoid moral distress. Facing vulnerabilities, whether
from personal or organizational sources, is a key component to the forma-

tion of moral courage (Thorup et al. 2012).
Noam’s (1993) research provides some insight into this dilemma,
suggesting that when individuals face an internal personal dilemma about
acting morally they must have a strong sense of self, because the self is
vulnerable primarily to itself. Individuals seeks to protect themselves. “The
ability to be reflective and decisive, to keep narcissism in check and believe
that one can make a difference—all those capacities contribute to moral
judgement and moral action” (p. 219). Individuals’ moral maturity should
be regarded as a relationship between complex intrapersonal judgment and
the capacity to transform. Vulnerabilities within individuals, according to
Noam (1993), have two primary orientations that are challenges within the
self: the vacillating self and the alienated self. The vacillating self is not
psychotic, but instead represents the individual who is uncertain and full
of self-questioning and uncertainty regarding his or her personal integra-
tion. This individual is preoccupied, directing his or her energies towards his
or her own survival and cohesion, and in doing so gives little thought to
others. Any person who is divided within him- or herself has not taken
responsibility to develop a true self, which results in alienation from others.
Thus such individuals have a difficult time reaching out to others since they
have not felt relationally connected. These individuals spend most of their
time in moral thought, not in moral action.
Noam’s research may explain why some individuals did not enter into
stage three: their internal dialogue could not be reconciled and they lacked
the capacity to engage with a group because they lacked developed rela-
tional skills due to the desire for self-preservation. Those not able to resolve
their internal dialogue might have been experiencing higher social costs,
and thus more moral courage might have been required of them. Research
suggests that moral courage is displayed in the presence of high social costs
and that less courage is required when levels of vulnerability are low or when
a threat is less pronounced (Osswald et al. 2010). Whatever the reason,
moral courage was critical to development in the prosocial leadership devel-
opment process and correspondingly to individual identity. This notion is
also supported by Koerner (2014), who has argued that courage is an
important formative element in a person’s identity and that individuals
view courage-based self-identity as a healthy response to demands.
Moral courage is also recognized as a key component of ethical leader-
ship studies. Hannah et al. (2011) posit that since organizations represent
morally complex environments, they require members to possess moral
STEP TEN: LIVED EXPERIENCES 141
courage if they are going to act ethically. Their research was drawn from a
military context and explored the antecedents of moral courage, finding
that authentic leadership was positively related to followers’ displays of
moral courage and prosocial behaviors. Sekerka et al. (2009) argue for
professional moral courage, which they consider to be a necessary manage-
ment practice in order to effectively manage ethical challenges within the
workplace environment. Their research reveals five characteristics of profes-
sional moral courage: moral agency, multiple values, endurance of threats,
going beyond compliance and moral goals. This research is supportive of
findings within the stages of the prosocial leadership development process,
which also recognizes the importance of multiple values, moral agency and
moral goals (intrapersonal/interpersonal goals).
STEP TEN: LIVED EXPERIENCES

To this point in stage three, prosocial leadership development was largely an
internal affectual and cognitive process, with limited external dialogue and
scarce action. Interactions with other individuals, groups and communities
had minor input into the leadership development process, but it was in this
step where individuals began to externalize their largely internal processes.
Here they began to understand that their developmental processes had
culminated in calls to action. The individuals believed that the volitional
act might or would provide greater meaning, and possibly that the experi-
ence could be the catalyst that led to personal moral growth into an
idealized self. However, there were levels of uncertainty regarding personal
growth as well as commitments to serve those in need. While the idealized
self or projected representative was still important at this step, individuals
believed that the idealized self would emerge from acting, but it was not
regarded as important as service to the other. Actual care was extended and
given to someone with whom the prosocial leader empathized. See
step.
The literature supports, at least in part, the process described above. The
decision to act, or intentional action, is deliberately chosen, with an ever-
increasing effort to ensure that action is closely associated with a courageous
act (Cavanagh and Moberg 1999). That prosocial leaders’ believe that their
true selves will emerge in the future by acting, and thus give their lives more
meaning, is supported by Ashforth et al. (2008), who find that personal
narratives play a crucial role in sense-making and self-narratives, which help
Table 8.3 Step ten: lived experiences
21-year-old “I am still frustrated, but now by my lack of inaction. I think I have thought
male this thing to death, and it will only make sense by getting some shit done”
20-year-old “Not only were my experiences fun and exciting, but they also allowed me to
male become a better leader through being in such a diverse and different place”
21-year-old “One of the most memorable experiences from this institute was traveling to
female [city name and place]. I was humbled by the generosity and love of the
people. I was humbled by their faith and hope. And, most importantly, I was
challenged to serve the needs of the people”
19-year-old “So, I think I have committed to do this, and that is what I need to
female do. Sometimes it feels like I am in the future waiting for myself to act and
help. Calling to myself ‘[girls name] your future is waiting for you’”
individuals reconstruct identities in role transitions (Ibarra and Barbulescu

2010). Experiences have developmental potential (Fallesen and Halpin
2004), but for experiences to be highly developmental they must contain
elements of challenge. The challenge refers to a type of “stretch” that goes
against normal habits, forcing individuals out of their comfort zones
(McCauley and Van Velsor 2004). Moral courage commits leaders to act
and live into their experiences, and it is the nature of this catalytic challenge
which allows for growth in moral character.
The commitment made by the individual to act morally (prosocial) has
aspects of Kohlberg’s level-two conventional moral action, paying attention
to the group’s norms and expectations, but also resonates with level-three
post-conventional moral development since there is such a high degree of
empathy and, most importantly, the moral action itself results in a consensus
regarding the rightness or justice of the action (Colby et al. 1983).
Leadership theory also suggests the importance of action as a means to
learning. Scharmer’s (2009) leadership theory, theory u, contains as part of
the leadership process “prototyping,” which requires an integration of
thinking, feeling and human will within the context of practical applications
and learning by doing. Likewise, the SCM (Komives and Wagner 2016) of
leadership also sees intentionality or action as the center or hub and ultimate
goal of the social change leadership theory model. Here, the leader inten-
tionally makes social change that requires a high degree of risk and a
“willingness to take a leap of faith” (p. 53).
STEP ELEVEN: GOAL COALESCENCE 143
STEP ELEVEN: GOAL COALESCENCE

Specifically in this step, both intrapersonal and interpersonal goals became
connected and unified through the experience, providing the individual,
through the experience of altruistic action, meaning and a clearer perspec-
tive of the idealized self. Thus, both intrapersonal and interpersonal goals
were understood as complementary and essential in personal development.
Here the individual saw how the lived experience helped address intraper-
sonal and interpersonal goals, both of which were instrumental in helping
him or her actualize or live into the projected representative. However, the
projected representative was still being formed and informed by the achieve-
ment of these goals, and the individual became aware of how the goals
helped regulate and direct behavior and could even be the goals that
provided the impetuous for development and personal learning, seeing
former goals as what he or she needed to learn. See Table 8.4 for sample
statements of individuals identified as being in this step.
Both types of goals are important aspects of the leadership development
process, aiding in self-regulation and the accomplishment of personal devel-
opment. Research conducted by Brett and VandeWalle (1999) indicates
that both types of goals (intrapersonal and interpersonal) are important to
personal development and represent the development and achievement of
prosocial values, indicating an individual’s increase in confidence (Elliott
and Dweck 1988). Moreover, Seijts et al. (2004) have demonstrated that
those individuals with learning goals, as opposed to simple specific perfor-
mance or vague goals, have higher performance. Where goals become
increasingly less vague, they play a significant role in the process of learning
and finally provide personal meaning. This distinction holds true for the
individuals who went through this stage of the prosocial leadership devel-
opment process. These goals were deeply valued by some individuals, since
Table 8.4 Step eleven: goal coalescence
22-year-old “When I helped the group with their goals, it helped me to—I became more
male me”
19-year-old “I was a little nervous about losing myself when I helped someone, but now
male through helping the kids, I helped myself. I think my help, made me grow
up a little, and I need to help others, in order to help myself”
20-year-old “My grandma always made lists. To Do lists for everything, and I am going
female to start doing the same. Setting deliberate goals can help me grow. We need
to get the house built by Thursday”
goals in this step held a significant place in their minds and lives; since these
goals were personally operative in their construction and resulted in care for
an individual, they were deemed worthy (Goud 2005).

Less of a formative ideal, the projected representative was still understood as
an ultimate or terminal goal, and ultimately the desired personal identity or
idealized self. This stage emphasized the reality that the projected represen-
tative could be represented by a group, community or organization, but,
more importantly, clarity was arrived at within lived experiences. However,
in this stage there were more references to exemplars from the individuals’
past, than in previous stages. Comments by individuals in this research
focused on drawing courage from another’s example. While the projected
representative is still a codification of ideas, values and experiences, here
people also began to use their own recent prosocial experiences as exemplars
for representing, primarily, that they did act courageously and could
become like the projected representative or the idealized self. See
step.
As stated earlier, the presence of multiple identities and societal roles
demands that a person seeks to live in self-consistency (Walker 2004). Or, as
Blasi (1983) suggested, an alignment of behaviors and their image of the
moral self is foundational to humans’ moral function. This desire to live in
consistency became most apparent in this step of this stage, where desired
identity was represented by actions that needed to align with behavior. But,
in this stage, individuals also were becoming aware of the need to contin-
ually align their identities and their actions, which was awakened through
cathartic experiences (Colby and Damon 1992; Lapsley and Narvaez
2004). While the prosocial leader may not have been completely cognizant
of what was occurring at this stage, this stage represents that beginning of
moral alignment within the prosocial leader. Individuals in this stage may
have begun to see how behavior and corresponding moral values have an
agentic effect on moral behavior and personal identity (Hardy and Carlo
2005).
21-year-old “I can begin understand the idea one of the leaders of the service project
male kept saying, “action equals identity.” I act to become who I want to be”
20-year-old “My change in attitude and my view of who I was and who I am becoming
female has grown through the [service program]. I also began helping my family
out more, since my dad has failing health, these things are changing me for
the better, making helping me be the person I really want to become”
21-year-old “I continued to ask myself, is this about me, or about them? If it is about me,
female I may not be helping them”
20-year-old “I feel for the group, and I know my helping them grows me, but it should
male not be just about me, it has to help them or this is a waste of all the changes
I’ve gone through”

Here integration was still an internal form of reasoning, triangulating goals,
empathic values and the projected representative or idealized self. Here,
integration continued to triangulate intrapersonal goals, but the reasoning
moved into ensuring that altruism was active within interpersonal goals and
ensured the welfare of others. The presence of altruism in goals they
determined would care for others might have been a way individuals
intended to ensure that the goals were not self-serving, since they had
already concluded that their actions were designed to help in ways that
the group deemed important. See Table 8.6 for sample statements of
While the reciprocity regarding identity and interpersonal goals was
similar to previous steps (Nucci 2004), altruism was now included in the
values of the idealized self. Again, empathy was internalized as both a
motivator and framework (Damasio 2003; Paciello et al. 2013).

This chapter provided the reader with a description of the steps in stage
three of the prosocial leadership development process. Specifically, this
chapter reviewed the components of stage three, then discussed the
development process and the nature of the relationship between steps in

stage three. The chapter then defined each of the three steps in this stage:
moral courage, lived experiences and goal coalescence. A discussion also
described the function of the two foundational elements that remain con-
sistent throughout the process: the projected representative and integration.
Since individual values and principles are often emphasized in research on
courage (Kidder 2005), narratives illustrating those values and principles are
important in constructing an individual’s identity, specifically regarding the
development of courage. One thing of note, mentioned briefly in the
projected representative segment, is the use of religious figures, civil figures
and respected family members, and some specific acts of courage they
displayed. While, this behavior by developing leaders may be a means to
muster the courage to act, what was surprising was that the narratives used
by the individuals in the research referred to were not only good examples of
courage but included the suffering leaders had to endure before their
courageous act and their levels of significant moral distress. The emerging
leaders recalled both the courage and the struggle in order to move through
their own moral distress, which was important to them, for some reason—it
is suggested that emerging leaders empathize with the exemplar at this stage
of the process. Seth Godin, in his book Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us,
provides some insight into why this may be; he states the following,
Leadership is scarce because few people are willing to go through the discom-
fort required to lead. The scarcity makes leadership valuable. If everyone tries
to lead all the time, not much happens. It is discomfort that creates the
leverage that makes leadership worthwhile. In other words, if everyone
could do it, they would, and it would be worth much.
REFERENCES
Armfield, J. M. (2006). Cognitive vulnerability: A model of the etiology of fear.
Clinical Psychology Review, 26(6), 746–768.
34(3), 325–374.
Bannon, D. (2008). Unique Korean cultural concepts in interpersonal relations.
Translation Journal, 12(1).
Brett, J. F., & Vande Walle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as
predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(6), 863–873.
REFERENCES 147
Burston, A. S., & Tuckett, A. G. (2013). Moral distress in nursing: Contributing

factors, outcomes and interventions. Nursing Ethics, 20(3), 312–324.
Cavanagh, G. F., & Moberg, D. J. (1999). The virtue of courage within the
organization. Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations, 1, 1–25.
Colby, A., Gibbs, J., Lieberman, M., & Kohlberg, L. (1983). A longitudinal study of
moral judgment, A monograph for the society of research in child development.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34(2), 231–249.
Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness,
and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 135–154.
Jameton, A. (1992). Dilemmas of moral distress: Moral responsibility and nursing
practice. AWHONN’s Clinical Issues in Perinatal and Women’s Health Nursing,
4(4), 542–551.
Kälvemark, S., H€oglund, A. T., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz,
B. (2004). Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health
care system. Social Science & Medicine, 58(6), 1075–1084.
Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage, digital distrust: Ethics in a troubled world.
Business and Society Review, 110(4), 485–505.
Koerner, M. M. (2014). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage.
Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 63–93.
Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. E. (2016). Leadership for a better world: Understand-
ing the social change model of leadership development. John Wiley & Sons.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lopez, S., O’Byrne, K. K., & Petersen, S. (2003). Profiling courage. In S. Lopez &
C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychology assessment: A handbook of models and
measures (pp. 185–197). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
handbook of leadership development (Vol. 29). San Francisco: Wiley.
Noam, G. G. (1993). “Normative vulnerabilities” of self and their transformations in
moral action. In G. G. Noam & T. E. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 209–238).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral courage?
Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct. In C. L. Pury &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue
(pp. 149–164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rowe, C. J., & Broadie, S. (2002). Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethical challenges in
the workplace: Conceptualizing and measuring professional moral courage. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 565–579.
Thorup, C. B., Rundqvist, E., Roberts, C., & Delmar, C. (2012). Care as a matter of
courage: Vulnerability, suffering and ethical formation in nursing care. Scandi-
navian Journal of Caring Sciences, 26(3), 427–435.
Woodard, C. R. (2004). Hardiness and the concept of courage. Consulting Psychol-
ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 173.
CHAPTER 9
Stage Four: Reflection and Growth
INTRODUCTION
Awareness in business literature of the positive impacts of spirituality prac-
tices on both the lives of individuals and collectively on organizations has
grown over the last fifteen to twenty years (Benefiel et al. 2014). However,
in many instances the spiritual practices highlighted as active and effective in
organizations are divorced from the religious traditions that first fostered
them (Ewest 2017). For example, the recent incorporation of mindfulness
in business management comes from a long history of meditation practices
by Buddhist, Christian, Islamic and Jewish religions. Divorcing it from its
religious roots, organizations such as Google, Apple, Aetna, the Pentagon,
and the U.S. House of Representatives are all making space for and embrac-
ing meditative or mindfulness practices (Altizer 2017). The benefit to
employees, managers and organizations is clear. If employees can learn to
be attentive by being present in the moment, and authentically aware of
their and others’ present states, giving an honest and holistic perspective,
then next steps, alternatives and possibilities all become clear.
four of the prosocial leadership development process. Specifically, this chap-
ter reviews the components of stage four, then discusses the development
process and the nature of the relationship between steps in stage four. The
chapter then defines each of the three steps within this stage: self-reflective
assessment, commitment to future goals and the progressive nature of
growth. A discussion also describes the function of the two foundational

150 9 STAGE FOUR: REFLECTION AND GROWTH
elements that remain consistent throughout the process: the projected

representative and integration. The chapter resolves with a short discussion
of and reflection on the critical components of stage three.
Again, not everyone in this research developed into a prosocial leader; the
leaders who are included in this research had similar developmental experi-
ences that resulted in altruistic action and future personal development,
roughly following each stage as observed in the prosocial leadership devel-
opment process. In fact, many leaders were not able to move from stage
three. From the 153 documents assessed for content, only 24 individuals
were identified as having moved through stage four. Primarily those leaders
who stayed in stage three were not able to face their fears that stemmed
from personal vulnerability nor did they display moral courage. But leaders
who moved into stage four, those who did develop into prosocial leaders,
can be typified by their following three steps in the developmental process:
self-reflective assessment, commitment to future goals and understanding
the progressive nature of growth. These three steps contribute to the two
foundational elements found throughout the prosocial leadership develop-
ment process: the projected representative and integration. Moreover, the
presence of empathy and altruism plays a significant and ongoing role in
stage four. Each of these steps has distinct characteristics. The definitions for
each step are provided in Table 9.1.
Again, the three steps within stage four occurred chronologically,
although in this stage the steps are separated by a focus on the projected
representative, the motivating values of empathy and altruism, and goals—
all of which have been consistent elements within each stage of the prosocial
leadership development process, albeit with differing functionality and
evolving meaning. The individual reflected on altruistic values as related
to the projected representative, interpersonal and intrapersonal goals (coa-
lesced goals), and then committed to future goals, recognizing the ongoing
nature of personal growth. Again, it is important to note that the steps
within the stage have a degree of concurrence of results, conjunction of
timing and interface. However, each step also is recognizable as distinct.
The relationship between these elements is seen in Fig. 9.1.
STEP TWELVE: SELF-REFLECTIVE ASSESSMENT

Individuals who moved into stage four began the stage with self-reflection,
looking back over the development process that started with stage one, step
one—self-awareness to antecedents. In stage one, step one, individuals
STEP TWELVE: SELF-REFLECTIVE ASSESSMENT 151
Table 9.1 Components of stage four
Step twelve Self-reflective A critical personal reflection of the leadership develop-

assessment ment process, accompanied by others’ assessments
Step thirteen Commitment to Following an analysis of the process, this step is an affir-
future goals mation of progress and a commitment to set future
prosocial goals
Step fourteen Progressive The individual understands that personal development is
nature of growth not static but ongoing and that formation happens in
community, causing the reentry into stage one, step one
Foundational Projected repre- More concrete than in previous iterations, the PR now
elements sentative (PR) closely resembles the person the individual intended to
become, composed of desired values and ideals but
indicative of experiences that the individual has lived
through. The individual uses his or her recent prosocial
experiences as an exemplar for representing experiences,
ideals and values, now, in turn, becoming a reference and
exemplar for future evaluation and personal and group
development
Integration Triangulating intrapersonal goals, empathic and altruistic
values and the projected representative or idealized self.
Integration continues to triangulate intrapersonal goals,
but reasoning moves into a tacit consideration of future
growth and goals for personal development
Interpersonal Goals
is associated with is part of is associated with
is associated with is associated with C

Commitment to Future Goals
Self Reflective Assessment Altrusim Projected Representative
is associated with
is part of
is cause of
is cause of Intrapersonal Goals

Empathy is associated with
is associated with is associated with
is cause of is associated with

Progressive Nature Growth
Integrity
Fig. 9.1 Relationships of steps in stage four

Table 9.2 Step twelve: self-reflective
21-year-old male “A lot has changed about me since feeling so guilty about my past, but
I am glad it has. I think the journaling process has been helpful, so has
talking with friends about my changes. I can begin to see a process or
future change and am excited”
21-year-old male “I don’t think I have paid that much attention to my past, it was like
I was alive or the last 3 months. Boy oh boy did I grown and change.
I can see the growing needs to continue”
reflected back over their past, making an honest, almost clinical assessment.
Again in stage four, step twelve, leaders looked back with the same authen-
ticity, but now they had more clarity and criteria for evaluation because of
their recent developmental experiences. Also, the reflection did not go back
into previous experiences before the development process started, but
primarily only extended to the beginning, triggering events from stage
one, step two—emotional responsiveness. Here the individual also consid-
ered future responsibilities, previewing the next step. But clearly, they were
recapitulating, although not entirely, the awareness found in stage one, step
one. See Table 9.2 for sample statements of individuals identified as being in
this step.
Self-awareness is the beginning of mindfulness, which is when people
know themselves and are present to events, which enables them to make
clear choices about how to respond to people and situations, authentically
and in line with their best selves (McKee et al. 2006). Mindfulness allows
enhanced self-regulation of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Glomb
et al. 2011). Individuals in this study demonstrated the cogent awareness
that gave them a self-perceived clarity in their thinking regarding others and
themselves. This clarity of thinking, or mindfulness, may have allowed them
to move out of the final step and forward willingly into the prosocial
leadership development process to reengage with both their past develop-
mental experiences and with planning or future care. That an individual’s
self-reflective capacity leads to prosocial action or corresponding goals is
supported by research literature. Hardy and Carlo (2005) suggest that the
construction and personal awareness of moral identity, which is structured
around moral concerns, are indicators of those who are prosocially acting in
their communities.
Mindfulness, or the individual’s ability to be self-aware and situationally
aware, is reinforced by research on those who act prosocially. According to
STEP TWELVE: SELF-REFLECTIVE ASSESSMENT 153
Schwartz, prosocial action begins with an awareness of problems. Beyond

the values-based model of human motivation, Schwartz also provides a
model of prosocial engagement in environmental and social contexts that
begins with awareness of the problem in reference to and reflection upon
the awareness of personal norms. This suggests that before people take
prosocial action, they must be aware of both their norms and existing needs.
Liere and Dunlap (1978) tested Schwartz’ model concerning human
motivation and environmental and social contexts to determine the impor-
tance of awareness. They found that awareness of need in the individual was
a predictor of awareness of behavioral consequences, which ultimately
resulted in the degree of an individual’s perceived need to take responsibility
(Onwezen et al. 2013). But, for awareness to be present, the individual
must adhere to self-transcendent values, which are prosocially oriented
values (Schwartz 2010). What is posited in Schwartz’ theory would also
be supportive of stage one, step one, self-awareness antecedents; however,
the model may be better situated at this late stage and step, since in this step
there is an element that is forward-looking, where the individual considers
future responsibilities or goals. Moreover, self-awareness may have similar
modality in this stage to that of the first stage, but now there are different
outcomes, scope and levels of clarity so the two steps have been regarded as
different.
Some leadership theories that have a specified developmental process,
discussed in Chap. 4, contain awareness as an important component. For
example, spiritual leadership (Fry and Nisiewicz 2013) recognizes the
importance of mindfulness where the individual wakes up and becomes a
“watcher,” a person who is present in the now. Watchers function within
their true or most essential essence, and are mindfully aware, discovering
new possibilities that enable them to live more wisely and fully. This,
however, is not possible if the leaders’ own desires for personal happiness
or cultural expectations sway their awareness. The description of the
watcher captures the individuals in this step of the prosocial leadership
development process.
The social change model is a values-centered approach, which also has as
a component individual self-knowledge. The social change model refers to
self-knowledge as “consciousness of self” (Komives and Wagner 2009,
p. 48), which means being aware of the beliefs, values, attitudes, and
emotions that motivate one to take action. This personal awareness allows
for congruence between thinking, feeling and behaving, where actions are
consistent with the most deeply held beliefs. Again, this awareness resonates
with this stage of the prosocial leader’s development, incorporating aspects

of the projected representative and the modality of integration.
Briefly, Marsh (2013) also includes mindfulness in the concept of ethical
leadership, wherein the individual’s awareness of his or her present experi-
ence is important to personal leadership development. Finally, Ruedy and
Schweitzer (2010) also provides a leadership development model, based
largely on identity formation, which includes personal awareness as an
aspect of their leadership development model, resulting in the valuing and
practicing of others-directed leadership.
STEP THIRTEEN: COMMITMENT TO FUTURE GOALS

Step thirteen, is identified by a commitment to setting intrapersonal and
interpersonal goals in the future as an outcome of personal awareness from
step twelve. The individuals who were aware, or mindful, and who evaluated
the entire leadership development process in which they were engaged, in
this step attested to and validated the process. Again, as in the previous step,
there was a mimicking of stage two, step five behavior, in that individuals
were making a commitment, but in that case the need for both intrapersonal
and interpersonal goals had not fully been determined and they might not
necessarily have had a group or community in mind. These steps were also a
tacit attestation that individuals had to some degree internalized the process
and found value in the function goals play in regulating and prioritizing
behavior. See Table 9.3 for sample statements of individuals identified as
being in this step.
Goal setting has also demonstrated self-regulatory effects for individuals,
acting both as a means to motivate them in the present and future and also
as a means to confine, direct and control behaviors (Latham and Locke
1991). Schwartz (1992) also suggest that goals perform not only a
Table 9.3 Step thirteen: commitment to future goals
22-year-old female “The process works, I think I understand myself much better, and
now see there is more work to be done in my community. I want to
get engaged, because it helps me to become more myself”
19-year-old female “The past year has been good. The service has changed me, but
also held me accountable, prioritized for me what is important and
I want to keep helping, I just don’t know exactly what to do next,
but I am going to do something”
STEP FOURTEEN: PROGRESSIVE NATURE OF GROWTH 155
motivational function but also have a self-regulatory function by helping

prioritize behaviors. For example, Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997)
conducted research on high school girls, to determine how goals function
in a self-regulatory capacity or function. Their research considered individ-
uals in class performance who had to intentionally shift their goals from
process goals, which focused on the iterative process, to outcome goals,
which focused on objectives. Their research demonstrated that outcomes
goals had a self-regulatory effect by helping individuals self-monitor and
thus enhance their performance over and against fellow classmates.
Other research indicates that the nature of values-laden goals is hierar-
chical, in that some goals represent various stages in becoming the higher
self, as opposed to others that are not targeted to develop the self. The
distinction between goals is that some goals represent “doing,” while other
goals represent “being”: the person wants to act (do) and/or be (being) a
certain way. And, while all goal attainment may happen simultaneously, the
“being” goals, even though they may not be recognized as such, are also the
person’s ultimate personal goal and the idealized self (Carver and Scheier
2001). Moreover, research suggests that individuals who had a broad range
of goals were socially accepted and reached socially constructed ends,
resulting in the self-perception that they had personal control over their
own development, a positive evaluation of the future and belief in the ability
to achieve the identity they desired (Pulkkinen and R€onkä 1994). These
findings correlate to the self-perception identified by prosocial leaders, at
this final stage, who not only positively looked to the future but also
displayed a satisfaction with their lives (Brandtstädter 1992). Finally,
research by Oettingen et al. (2001) supports the phenomena in this step
of the prosocial leadership development process, finding that individuals
who imagine a desirable future and reflect on present realties activate
favorable expectations for the future, which, in turn, leads to a strong
goal(s) commitment.
STEP FOURTEEN: PROGRESSIVE NATURE OF GROWTH

Individuals here understood that development was not static but ongoing
and formative in community, causing the reentry into stage one, step one.
Here, individuals did not believe they had “arrived” at the end of a process
or reached the projected representative or idealized self. Instead, the
prosocial leadership development process heightened their awareness of
their own potential and the further personal development needed. More
importantly, because they had internalized the needs of others, and the need
Table 9.4 Step fourteen: progressive nature of growth
20-year-old female “I think my growth has been so good for me, and I see how much
need, and in turn how much potential I have to grow”
19-year-old male “Need, growth, and helping others is never ending, but that is how
I want to live”
19-year-old female “I feel like I am in the movie Groundhogs Day where the guy
relived the day until he became a better person, I want that to be
me”
for their personal growth was proportional to the scale of the issue, they
began to see their potential, and, most importantly, they believed they had
met their higher selves in the process of serving others. See Table 9.4 for
The individuals in the final step of the prosocial leadership development
process can, at least in part, be identified by what Rogers (1959) described
as discovering the benefits of enhancing themselves. As Rogers notes, the
need for humans to become actualized and flourish occurs through inter-
actions and relations with other humans. The development of leaders
through the prosocial leadership development process is also illustrative of
individuals arriving at their most genuine form of existence, where they
understand that the goal of moral living is to internalize ethical purpose.
Alternatively, as mentioned in Chap. 1, Storsletten and Jakobsen (2015) use
Kierkegaard’s (2013) three modes of human existence as a rubric for ethical
leadership development. For review, initially a leader may choose aesthetic
existence, which is where his or her behavior is dictated by the appetites of
the present moment. Next is the ethical life, wherein the person decides to
take his or her place within groups and accept his or her obligations and
moral standards. I have regarded these individuals as utility leaders, who use
people as objects. The third mode, which resonates with the final step of the
prosocial leadership development process, is the beautiful, wherein the
person is motivated by internal values and a relationship to the absolute or
God, or by a commitment to the higher self.

With little change from before, some subtle differences emerged in the
projected representative. More concrete than in previous iterations, the
projected representative now closely resembled the person the individual
intended to become, comprising the desired values and ideals, but as
21-year-old female “It is ironic, and maybe a little arrogant, but I want to become
myself. I mean I still know there are great woman and men out
there, who are better than I will ever be, but I also begin to see the
person I am becoming and it is not better [than them] but it is me”
22-year-old male “I started with a picture of who I wanted to become, and now that
picture has changed and may keep changing. But as it came into
focus, I realized I could see myself”
indicators of experiences that the individual lived through. The individual

used recent prosocial experiences as an exemplar for representing experi-
ences; ideals and values became a reference and exemplar for future evalua-
tion and for personal and intergroup development. Yet, the individual
became aware of the formative and transformative nature of relationships,
and the projected representative became fluid and more progressive. See
Here, the projected representative, the individual’s idealized identity,
became more complete, and, in alignment with behaviors, was now a represen-
tation of the image of his or her desired moral self (Blasi 1984). The individual
understood and experientially internalized the agentic effect that could be
achieved through pursuing the projected identity (Hardy and Carlo 2005).

Again, with little change from the previous stage, some subtle differences
emerged. While triangulation of intrapersonal goals, empathic and altruistic
values and the projected representative or idealized self continued, in inte-
gration reasoning moved to include consideration of future growth and
goals for personal development. See Table 9.6 for sample statements of
Please see comments in the previous chapter on integration, which apply
to this stage as well.

This chapter provided the reader with a description of the steps in stage four
reviewed the components of stage four, then discussed the development
21-year-old “I continue to think about my future, and how my goals, and desire to help
female will effect who I become”
process and the nature of the relationship between steps in stage four. The
chapter then defined each of the three steps in this stage: self-reflective
assessment, commitment to future goals and the progressive nature of
growth. A discussion also described the function of the two foundational
elements that remain consistent throughout the process: the projected
representative and integration.
While there are many things to note in this final stage, the development
of mindfulness or awareness in the prosocial leader may be the most signif-
icant. The leader moves from what Langer (1989) refers to as a mindless,
programmed automation that deals with information singly, accepting it as
true regardless of circumstances, to being mindful. Mindfulness, for Langer,
is being open to surprise, oriented towards the present movement, sensitive
to contexts, and liberated from old mindsets.
Boyatzis and McKee (2013) found that numerous leaders suffer from
what they regard as “power stress,” where decisions are unclear, communi-
cation is complex, authority is ambiguous, and leaders themselves are many
times isolated and alone. But, for those who lead organizations, there is
renewal. Some leaders appear to manage themselves and the stress their
organizations put on their shoulders, finding the strength to motivate
themselves and others. Boyatzis and McKee suggest that these leaders
understand that the sacrifice they must make for their organizations must
be countered by self-care. This description sounds very close to the leader-
ship model that emerged from the prosocial leadership development process
as described so far in this research. For these leaders, Boyatzis and McKee
suggest, renewal comes from mindfulness, hope and compassion—all
aspects of this final stage. The final chapter considers whether the prosocial
leadership development model can also be validated within the context of
the organization.
REFERENCES
Altizer, C. (2017). Mindfulness: Performance, wellness or fad? Strategic HR Review,
16(1), 24–31.
REFERENCES 159
Benefiel, M., Fry, L. W., & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality and religion in the
workplace: History, theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,
6(3), 175.
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. M. Kurtines &
J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 128–
139). New York: Wiley.
Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and
connecting with others through mindfulness, hope and compassion. Boston: Harvard
Business Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:
The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34(2), 231–
249.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading: Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley
Longman.
Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The norm activation
model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in
pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141–153.
As developed in the clientcentered framework (Vol. 3, pp. 184–256). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoret-
ical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial
behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions,
and behavior: The better angels of our nature (Vol. 14, pp. 221–241).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
337–349.
89(1), 29.
CHAPTER 10
Prosocial Leadership Development

in Organizational Life
INTRODUCTION
This book began by proposing leadership as the primary means to solve
mounting global social and environmental issues. In Chaps. 1, 2, 3 and 4,
the context and theoretical anchor for the prosocial leadership theory and
the ensuing development process was explained. Then, in Chaps. 5, 6, 7,
8 and 9 of the book, a prosocial leadership development model was iden-
tified as it arose from observed data and interviews with nascent prosocial
leaders’ development. The contention is that if one can better identify and
understand the prosocial development process, one can find a means to
better predict when, where and from whom help can be expected (Batson
2010). But how the proposed prosocial leadership development model
articulates with existing prosocial leaders who manage socially conscious
enterprises has not been examined.
This chapter seeks to understand the development and presence of
prosocial leadership among leaders of small to medium enterprises (SME),
endeavoring to determine to what degree the prosocial leadership develop-
ment model and the identified four-stage model—antecedent awareness and
empathic concern; community and group commitment; courage and action;
and, finally, reflection and growth—apply to SME leaders. The research on
SME leaders of social enterprises produced a fifth stage, which emerged with
two corresponding subthemes or steps. Specifically, this chapter reviews the
components of stage five, then discusses the development process and the

162 10 PROSOCIAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE
nature of the relationship between steps in stage five and in the preceding four
stages.
It is widely accepted that multiple factors contribute to the functioning of
organizations that engage with stakeholders to build shared value (Parmar
et al. 2010) and that practice corporate social responsibility (CSR), and,
among such organizations, leadership is recognized as a vital or the most
vital factor (Godos-Díez et al. 2011; Lawrence and Beamish 2012; Russell
and Lipsky 2008). In fact, a special issue of Organizational Dynamics was
dedicated to this subject (2015, vol. 44(2)). Yet how organizational respon-
sibilities moderate or mediate the impact of prosocial leaders and their
corresponding development remains in question.
Based on the definition of stewardship provided in Chap. 1, three
conditions or phases must be met before individuals and organizations can
be considered stewards: (1) a leader takes responsibility and sacrifices his or
her own goals for the other based on intra- and interpersonal relationships;
(2) a leader tends to the financial goals of the organization and will not
compromise stakeholders’ concerns for the environment; and, finally,
(3) combining elements found in phase one and phase two, the leader
takes responsibility for others and for the organization but also takes the
additional step of taking responsibility for fellow employees.
Thus far, the prosocial leadership process described in Chaps. 5, 6, 7,
8 and 9 arguably met the criterion for phase one of the stewardship model—
individual responsibility. But the criterion for phase two of the stewardship
model—organizational responsibility—remains unmet since no financial
goals or stakeholder aspects have been included thus far in the research.
Thus, while phase one of the stewardship model has been satisfied, in the
absence of an organizational context, phase two remains unmet, as does
phase three since it proposed the additional component of developing
others. See Fig. 10.1.
RESEARCH QUESTION
To better determine how prosocial leadership and its development are
moderated or mediated by leaders in an organizational context, this chapter
pursues the following question:
How does the prosocial leadership development process apply to existing

leaders within the context of the organizational life?
THE PARTICIPANTS, DATA AND PROCEDURE 163
Criteria Met Unmet Criteria Unmet Criteria
Phase One: Individual Responsibility
Prosocial leadership seeks its own

Phase Two: Organizational Responsibility
goals while serving the goals of
others, but the leader will sacrifice Corporate social responsibility is Phase Three: Stewardship
their own goals to ensure others leadership that seeks the best for
will achieve their goals. the financial goals of Being responsible for leading
organizations, without themselves, fellow employees,
compromising the goals of and the organization to financial,
Relationships with self and stakeholders concerns for society
employees. social, environmental
and the environment. sustainability, even at a cost.
Relationships extend to Making the leaders and the

shareholder outside the company. organization good global stewards
Fig. 10.1 Comprehensive responsibility model (Ewest 2017) (© Greenleaf

Publishing)
THE PARTICIPANTS, DATA AND PROCEDURE

The research used in this chapter was a mixed-method study, conducted on
22 organizational founders of SME, who had a social mission built into their
business operations. The candidates were selected from a larger pool
by determining if they held and were motivated by prosocial values as
measured by Starrett’s (1996) Global Social Responsibility Inventory.
Those candidates who demonstrated high scores in responsibility to people
and global social responsibility, as measured by the GSRI, were selected into
the final pool (n ¼ 22). The final 22 organizational leaders wrote a reflective
essay and then gave in-person interviews. The interviews were conducted
and recorded, as were the reflective essays on their personal leadership
development. The reflective essays sought to understand the various aspects
or phenomena that they regarded as personally important to their leadership
and its continued development. Grounded theory was used to determine
what phenomena were present in the interviewees’ experiences. See Appen-
dix 2 for a full description of methodology, instrumentation and partici-
pants. Again, the intent was first to determine how these leaders, motivated
by prosocial values, fit the prosocial leadership development process as

outlined in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and then to determine if other significant
phenomena would emerge.
FINDINGS OF RELATIONSHIPS TO PREVIOUS STAGES

The 22 individuals’ reflective essays and personal interviews indicated that
established organizational prosocial leaders could be identified within each
of the four prosocial leadership development stages; however, only stage
four retained all 22 individuals. Stages one, two, three and the new stage,
stage five, had steps that were missed or not adhered to by some of the
individuals. See Table 10.1 for the specific number of adherents for each
stage.
The general findings can be depicted by an absence of identification from
seventeen of the 22 leaders with steps one and two of stage one, and an
emergence of a new stage, stage five. Steps one and two of stage one could
not be identified within the reflective essays or interviews as a present part of
the leaders’ experience; only steps three and four were considered viable for
established prosocial organizational leaders, suggesting that for established
leaders of organizations the first two steps of stage one are not necessary.
Secondarily a new stage emerged, stage five, which focused on envisioning
the possibilities for employees within the organization and coaching
employees. See Table 10.2 for details. Finally, each organizational leader
engaged differently with the various steps, with only one leader moving
through all sixteen steps in the process. See Table 10.3 for details.
Table 10.1 Number Stage Total survey population (N ¼ 43a)

identified as completing
each stage Stage one 5
Alt—Stage one 17
Stage two 20
Stage three 17
Stage four 22
Stage five 18
a
Forty-three individuals were part of the research group, but 22 leaders
were identified as having motivating prosocial values
Table 10.2 Prosocial leadership development process—five-stage model
Stages Stage one Substage one Stage two Stage three Stage four Stage five
Antecedent Empathic Community and group courage and reflection and Envisioning and
awareness and concern commitment action growth coaching
empathic concern
Steps Step one: Step five: Step nine: Step twelve: Step fifteen:
Self-awareness/ Commitment to Moral Self-reflective Envisioning
antecedents group or community courage and others Step sixteen:
Step two: Step six: Step ten: assessment Coaching
Emotional Diversity, group Lived Step thirteen:
responsiveness agreement challenge experiences Commit to future
Step three: Step three: In-group Step eleven: intrapersonal and
Empathic concern Empathic Out-group Goal interpersonal goals
Step four: concern Step seven: coalescence Step fourteen:
Intrapersonal goals Step four: Interpersonal goals Awareness of
Intrapersonal Step eight: progressive nature
goals Altruistic awareness of personal growth
FINDINGS OF RELATIONSHIPS TO PREVIOUS STAGES
165
166
Table 10.3 Prosocial leaders’ step adherence

10
Prosocial Leaders Step Adherence *

Stage one Stage two Stage three Stage four Stage five
Industry Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Mattress Firm
Financial Instruction
Hydroponics
Manufacturing #1
Manufacturing #2
Manufacturing #3
Manufacturing #4
Clothing Retail #1
Clothing Retail #2
Community Center
Restaurant #1
Restaurant #2
Restaurant #3
Restaurant #4
Consulting #1
Consulting #2
Consulting #3
Retail #1
Retail #2
Retail #3
Coffee Retailing #1
Coffee Retailing #2
PROSOCIAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE
White areas depicts steps that the leader did not identify with and/or no evidence emerged from the interviews or essays to confirm activity in the step.
a
The associated social cause for each industry can be found in Appendix 2
STAGE ONE AND ALTERNATIVE STAGE ONE 167
Table 10.4 Stage one organizational leaders
Hydroponics In business “I can remember a time when it was important for me to look
six years back and decide who I wanted to be, and while that can be a
thought provoking exercise still – today I know who I want to
be, and am busy about the work of becoming that person”
Community In business “When I reflect, and am aware, it is typically regarding my
center eight years present responsibilities and goals for those I am here to serve.
These are the people I have decided need my help, these
people I want to look back on in my final years and remember
and feel emotional about. But, I have to be careful where I
spend my emotional energy”
Coffee In business “Huh. I do feel emotions about my past, but I don’t think
roasting seven years they have been motivation for some time. I think of that as
more of a starting place, how I started this whole crazy
business. And, from time to time I remember my past and
emotions swell, but I kind of sorted through all that and
decided who I wanted to be today”
STAGE ONE AND ALTERNATIVE STAGE ONE

Only five organizational leaders, out of the 22 surveyed, could be identified
within step one (self-awareness) and step two (emotional responsiveness).
The majority of the prosocial organizational leaders entered into the
prosocial leadership development process at step three, empathic concern,
and then moved on to step four, intrapersonal goals. Many of the leaders
indicated that in the past they were reflective or self-aware, as described in
steps one and two, but they described this experience as part of their initial
or nascent development. Interviews suggested that leaders recognized the
importance of awareness of past experiences (step one) and the emotional
responsiveness (step two) that came from those past experiences as an early
portion of their leadership development, but currently their awareness was
focused on future goals and commitments. Specifically, they had a tendency
to regulate emotions regarding past events and consider them important as
an impetuous but had a commitment to being present to future opportu-
nities, communities and their presence within them. Organizational
prosocial leaders collectively considered steps three and four to be a present
part of their leadership process and in so doing suggested that developed
organizational leaders might have an alternative starting point in stage one
(Table 10.4).
Table 10.5 Stage two organizational leaders
Restaurant In business “When these people come to me, they are homeless,
eleven years tired and some have drug problems. By the time we are
done with them, they are contributing to the economic
life of [city]. These people cannot see their potential, so
I set goals for them”
Financial In business more “It would be a nice idea to think I could form goals with
instruction than fifteen years the people I am serving, but if I were to do that, then
they would not take responsibility for their own actions,
which is how they got into trouble in the first place”
Community In business more “The people in my community are just trying to survive
center than fifteen years their neighborhoods, and setting goals with me, or me
finding what they need and adjusting my personal goals
doesn’t make sense”
STAGE TWO
Within stage two, all the organizational leaders could be identified with each
stage of the process. Prosocial organizational leaders felt a commitment to a
group (step five) to which they belonged or from which they were margin-
alized as outside members (step six), and they were motivated by care for
others (step eight). However, not all organizational leaders could identify
with step seven, interpersonal goals, as part of their ongoing leadership
development process. Some leaders didn’t believe that (1) their members
knew what was best for them and could form goals within a group; (2) their
followers carried more than a partial vision, and were not, therefore, blind to
real potential and possibilities; or (3) their members were responsible
enough to set their own goals and then communicate them (Table 10.5).
STAGE THREE
For stage three, all the prosocial organizational leaders were able to be
identified, and self-identified, with step ten, the need for lived experiences,
and step eleven, goal coalescence, and all but five leaders identified with step
nine, moral courage. The five leaders who did not identify with moral
courage were the same leaders who did not identify with step seven in
stage two. Simply stated, these leaders did not self-identify as fearful, nor
did they feel vulnerable when they acted. Their attitudes could be described
A NEW STAGE EMERGES: STAGE FIVE 169
Table 10.6 Stage three organizational leaders
Financial In business more “I was afraid early on, but I wouldn’t describe myself as
instruction than fifteen years feeling vulnerable or afraid. I choose to act and make a
difference, and if something happens, it happens, but I
am here to help, no matter what comes”
Community In business more “I wouldn’t say I am courageous, I just do what needs
center than fifteen years to be done. Being afraid invites trouble because the
people around here can sense vulnerability and take
advantage of you. But, more importantly, it [fear]
causes me to hesitate, and I cannot afford to wait to
engage, most times when there is an opportunity, I
need to act and act I do”
as intentional, compassionate and fierce. Their reflective essays demon-

strated a high degree of courage, as did their personal interviews, but they
had no adverse sense of vulnerability or fear to react against. They appeared
willing to lose everything, or understood the costs associated with their
actions and were willing to move forward (Table 10.6).
STAGE FOUR
All 22 organizational leaders were identified and personally identified with
the steps found in stage four: step twelve, self-reflection assessment; step
thirteen, commitment to future goals; and step fourteen, awareness of the
progressive nature of personal growth. These leaders also identified two
themes that could not be identified by the previous developing leaders—
envisioning and coaching as part of the leadership process.
A NEW STAGE EMERGES: STAGE FIVE

Twenty two leaders were identified as prosocial leaders who took organiza-
tional responsibility and supported most if not all of the previously identified
stages one through four in the prosocial leadership development process.
However, a fifth stage emerged from the data with two corresponding
themes or steps. Organizational prosocial leaders in stage five can be typified
by the following two steps in the developmental process: envisioning and
coaching. These two steps contribute directly or indirectly to the two
Table 10.7 Components of stage five
Step Envisioning Is seeing others’ futures as possibilities to grow personally and within
fifteen their communities, raising expectations as norms for the group, and
explaining future impacts of the group
Step Coaching Helping with followers’ interpersonal development (self-awareness),
sixteen helping the group form reasonable expectations through collabora-
tion, including others in the group, making them belong, explaining
how followers can contribute to organizational impacts and
explaining how the organization can help them grow
foundational elements (described earlier) still found throughout the

prosocial leadership development process: the projected representative and
integration. The two steps have distinct characteristics; their definitions are
provided in Table 10.7.
These two steps were not found in the previously researched individuals,
but here they appeared to be operative in prosocial organizational leaders
whose behaviors regarding these two steps were present throughout the
prosocial development process, being found at specific steps in the process.
The developing nascent leaders did refer to those who “coached” or
“inspired” them, but did not consider them to be part of their own leader-
ship development process. However, the two steps identified among orga-
nizational leaders did emerge in a specific chronological order, with
envisioning occurring first, supporting followers (nascent leaders) who
were in stage one, self-awareness/antecedents (step one); in stage two,
community commitment (step four); and in stage three, moral courage
(step nine). The activities of the prosocial organizational leader endeavored
to help followers (nascent leaders) connect to the projected representative.
Coaching emerged next, supporting stage three, moral courage (step nine);
goal coalescence (step eleven); and, finally, stage four, self-reflective assess-
ment (step twelve). It is important to note that the steps within each stage
have a degree of concurrence of results, conjunction of timing and interface.
However, each step also is recognizable as distinct. The relationship
between these elements is seen in Fig. 10.1.
STEP FIFTEEN: ENVISIONING 171
STEP FIFTEEN: ENVISIONING

Organizational leaders who went through the prosocial leadership develop-
ment process now began strengthening others for whom they felt respon-
sible and identified them as being in a similar development process and as
emerging leaders. Organizational leaders envisioned the future of the orga-
nization but also understood the importance of sharing a vision with fol-
lowers. The typical strategy used by prosocial organizational leaders went
beyond reinforcing the mission of the organization to followers and also
focused on helping followers understand and envision what the organiza-
tion could accomplish. Organizational leaders did this primarily through
stories and metaphors rich in images to communicate to the followers the
possibility of service to the community and return on revenue in the long-
term. Leaders helped individuals see that change was possible through their
collective work.
Within this same theme, organizational leaders also continually raised
expectations for the group and did so by establishing future goals that were
attached to normalize behavior and group values. Leaders many times
sought collaboration or input from senior members, or from those with
institutional memory of past success, and began to point the group forward
to future short-term targeted impacts. See Table 10.8 for sample statements
of individuals identified as being in this step.
Table 10.8 Step fifteen: envisioning
Mattress firm In business “I make it my first job to find developing employees, remind
eight years them of our mission, what impacts we can have, what
impacts we have had, and what they can do to make a good
paycheck, and also help the [city name] community. Hell,
we have done so much and if those who lead around here
don’t say something and get others excited, we stop
expanding”
Manufacturing In business “Most of my employees know what they are here and what
ten years we do for our community and how we make money. But,
what everyone, including me, can forget is that we have to
have a picture of where we are going in the long-term, and
what we need to do today”
Retail In business “Group expectation is what leads to organizational success,
three years low group expectations lead to low organizational out-
comes. So, those who lead around here are always helping
people move past their own self-imposed limitations”
Leadership vision in organizational maintenance can function either to

stress maintenance of external standards or to advance adaptive change
(Mumford and Strange 2013), both of which are demonstrated by prosocial
organizational leaders within step fifteen. Mumford and Strange (2013)
suggest that the intention of the organizational leader is to provide a mental
model for organizational members, which also is referred to in this study as
the projected representative. The indication is that the prosocial organiza-
tional leader is attempting to incorporate the organization within the for-
mation of the emerging leader’s idealized self. Research by Carton et al.
(2014) argues for the communication of vision with an inclusion of values as
a recognized key responsibility of leaders when establishing purpose. How-
ever, for many existing leaders, how these messages establish a sense of
shared purpose among employees has often been ignored. Their research of
151 hospitals and 62 groups of employees identified dysfunctional leader-
ship practices, and they recommended that organizational leaders use a
large amount of imagery in communication, with a smaller reference to
values.
The articulation of vision by a leader, as displayed by prosocial organiza-
tional leaders in step fifteen, can be identified as a component of numerous
leadership theories (Mumford and Strange 2013; Podsakoff et al. 1990),
many of which were discussed in Chap. 3. For example, Podsakoff et al.
(1990) codified TL practices into six behaviors among the seven most
widely recognized TL theories: identify and articulate a vision, provide an
appropriate model, foster the acceptance of group goals, maintain high
performance expectations, provide individualized support and recognize
the accomplishments of others. The leadership behavior of providing an
appropriate model was not present within the prosocial organizational
leaders, but the first three behaviors describe the envisioning actions and
the intent of prosocial organizational leaders in this step. See Table 10.10
for descriptions.
Moreover, other leadership theories also support and identify organiza-
tional leaders’ actions in this step. Authentic leadership (Avolio et al. 2004)
and EL (Brown and Trevi~no 2006) support the need for building shared
values. The SCM suggests the need to ground collective efforts in the
shared values of people who work together to effect positive change
(Astin and Astin 2000). Spiritual leadership (Fry et al. 2005) argues for
creating a vision of service to key stakeholders and a desired corporate
culture.
STEP SIXTEEN: COACHING 173
STEP SIXTEEN: COACHING

Organizational prosocial leaders could be identified as understanding the
dynamic and changing nature of relationships and, because of this perspec-
tive, saw them as opportunities to develop people. To this end organiza-
tional prosocial leaders helped others develop personal awareness, providing
interpretation and insight into their perceptions and emotions. Organiza-
tional leaders helped others set realistic expectations by helping developing
individual leaders (i.e., employees, volunteers) find a place in the organiza-
tion where they could collaborate with others, giving them a sense of
inclusion and belonging. Finally organizational leaders consistently helped
others understand how their efforts contributed to the organization’s
impact and growth. These leadership behaviors appeared to strengthen
the will of followers to act. See Table 10.9 for sample statements of indi-
viduals identified as being in this step. While some of the relationships
between the leader and follower were long-term, the majority of relation-
ships described were not regarded as long-term in orientation.
However, four of the organizational leaders did not consider coaching to
be a behavior they practiced, although they recognized it as a valuable skill
they wanted to develop in the future. These leaders were also among the five
who engaged in steps one and two, unlike the other seventeen leaders, who
did not.
Table 10.9 Step sixteen: coaching
Restaurant In business six years “When individuals in the organization find a place to
belong, and contribute, I realize I have done my job in
moving them forward in their personal development,
but know that I need to help them with understand-
ing their potential”
Manufacturing In business more “What did that one philosopher say—people are blank
than fifteen years slates”. That is true enough. Employees can limit
themselves, they don’t understand their potential. But
when I give them a clear picture of what the person
they can become, explain it and get them working in a
team, they exceed their own professional expectations
almost every time”
Developmental leadership literature, as discussed in Chap. 4, supports

the use of coaching as an interpersonal leadership development tool. Also, it
is important to note that coaching differs from mentoring in that mentoring
is intended to be a long-term relationship that supports professional devel-
opment (Hernez-Broome and Hughes 2004) and has peer learning part-
ners (McMauley et al. 2010) or a developmental relationship with a senior
partner (Day 2001). In this research, the nature of the relationship was not
understood as long-term, and the organizational leader’s intention was to
get the individual to the next step of his or her personal development and to
present organizational support without the direct consideration of profes-
sional competencies for a future career within the organization.
These relationships primarily focused on goals and behavioral change,
the hallmarks of coaching (Day 2001; Hernez-Broome and Hughes 2004;
McMauley et al. 2010). Moreover, while a relationship might ultimately be
long-term in nature, the intent of the relationship was not defined by leaders
in this way. In every case, the organizational leader did encourage a junior
partner, suggesting that a degree of mentoring was taking place and that the
relationship was not a peer partnership, but this encouragement was
performed with the understanding that each person was a co-dependent,
and the advising was devoid of professional development, which is an
essential component of mentoring.
Again, as with the previous step, numerous leadership theories support
coaching behaviors as important within leadership. Considering the six
behaviors of Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) codified TL practices, two of the
leadership behaviors found in widely accepted TL theory behaviors repre-
sent the organizational leaders in this stage: fostering the acceptance of
group goals and providing individualized support. These two TL behaviors
provide an accurate description of the organizational leader’s behavior at
this stage. See Table 10.10 for descriptions. Moreover, SL (Greenleaf and
Spears 2002) seeks to grow individuals to become healthier, wiser and more
autonomous. Finally, spiritual leadership (Fry et al. 2005) desires to tap into
the fundamental needs of leaders and followers for their spiritual well-being,
meaning that their life has meaning and makes a difference, resulting, in
turn, in the feeling that they belong.
Table 10.10 Behavioral components of models of TL that pertain to envisioning and coaching
Behavioral House (1977) Bradford and Bass (1985) Bennis and Tichy and Conger and Kouzes and
components Cohen (1984) Nanus DeVanna Kanungo Posner (1987)
(1985) (1986) (1988)
Envisioning
Identify and Provide an Determine Charismatic Management Recognize a Advocate an Challenge the
articulate a appealing vision and build a leader of attention need for change appealing yet process and
vision common behavior through and create a new unconventional inspire a
vision vision vision vision shared vision
High perfor- Communicate Inspirational
mance high expectations leader
expectations of follower behavior
performance
Coaching
Foster the Build a Work to Team build to Enable others
acceptance of shared develop com- gain support for to act
group goals responsibility mitment and new vision
team trust
Provide indi- Individualized Be Sensitive to Encourage the
vidualized consideration the needs of the heart
support followers
Behave with
confidence and
enthusiasm
STEP SIXTEEN: COACHING
Adapted from Podsakoff et al. (1990)

175
SUMMARY
This chapter provided the reader with a description of the steps in stage one
reviewed the components of stage one, then discussed the development
process and the nature of the relationship between steps in stage one. The
chapter then defined each of the four steps in this stage: self-awareness/
antecedents, emotional awareness, empathy and intrapersonal goals. A
discussion also described the function of the two foundational elements
that remained consistent throughout the process: the projected representa-
tive and integration. The chapter resolved with a short discussion and
reflection of the critical components of stage one.
DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

The research in this book is descriptive and thus leaves unanswered appli-
cations and prescriptions. While it is well accepted that a qualitative study
can be valid, with solid theoretical support from academic literature, it is
most often the beginning of an extended research process (Creswell 2012;
Maxwell 1992). But often new theories and qualitative investigations rep-
resent the exploration of a new aspect of a field and can be seen as
contradicting established ideas or directly extending a challenge, suggesting
that former theories are not as accurate or valid as they may have appeared.
This Newtonian notion suggests that each researcher must endeavor to
rewrite the history of previous research so the “newer” theory rewrites the
“older” one and somehow obscures the victory of the older theory, thus
appearing more successful because of increased predictability (Rosenberg
2015). While it is true that previous research may not be complementary in
nature, and it has already been stated that the research in this book
endeavors to be more accurate and create greater predictability, it is also
alternatively suggested by Kuhn (2012) that if research is to be predictive, it
must be transdisciplinary. And, even if some accuse Kuhn of holding to old
Newtonian deterministic views, the interim way to move forward should
embrace multicausal (multivariate) predictability and thus attend to descrip-
tive research, as is found in this book and in many other places within social
science research. Ironically, one of the reasons that the social sciences have
made less progress than other sciences has been because social science has
held onto Newtonian notions that seek to predict and control rather than
WHAT WE UNDERSTAND 177
explain behaviors to make them meaningful and understandable, which I

have endeavored to do in this book (Rosenberg 2015).
WHAT WE UNDERSTAND
Reflecting on the research, multiple understandings emerged from the data,
most of them reaffirmations supporting an already robust field of existing
social science research on leadership theory. However, some of the findings
below are suggestive of the continued lapse in social science research
concerning leadership studies (e.g., leadership development), while other
findings are supportive of an emerging understanding of leadership studies
(e.g., personal identity in goal formation and growth). However, a third
group of findings represents a multicausal perspective, transdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary, and while multidisciplinary research typically demon-
strates certain inadequacies on the part of the researcher (as is the case
here) it also exposes the myopic or reductionist limits of individual disci-
plines. Yet, it is on this fine edge where research can arrive at new horizons
and perspectives (e.g., anchoring leadership ethics in prosocial values).
These new understandings include the following:
1. Numerous academic and organizational initiatives expect leaders to

be catalysts in bringing needed change to a world overburdened
with social and environmental problems. Generally speaking these
expectations carry with them, either tacitly or directly, an under-
standing of the catalytic importance of a leader who acts out of a set
of personal values or behaviors and who effects positive change in
organizations, which, in turn, leads to change in local communities
(Hernandez 2008).
2. Leadership theory is still struggling to find theoretical connections
to ethics, especially classical ethical theories (Ciulla 2005). Yet,
unabashed leadership theorists use the term “ethics” or “morals”
and largely ignore thousands of years of research on ethics from
various other disciplines, focusing on the normative ethical action
category within moral discourse and at best use classical ethical
leadership theories intermittently (e.g., Rawls, virtue theory). The
result, as noted by Price (2003), is the development of leaders who
have no ethical reference to hold themselves to account and who
open themselves to self-deception, as well as a tendency for leaders
to become utility leaders who see ethical normative leadership

behavior, and not individuals, as the ultimate goal.
3. Empathy and altruism are present in others-directed behavior
(Batson 2010; Schwartz 1994), and these behaviors are present in
many leadership theories (Ewest 2015). Empathy as an intrinsic
human condition provides a well-tested theoretical map to deter-
mine genuine others-directed behavior when applied to leadership
behaviors. Moreover, empathy and altruism integrate the normative
values category, and also play an active and formative role within the
prosocial leadership development process.
4. Few leadership theories have a developmental process model, and
there are only a few methods of leadership development that have
components specific to ethical leadership (Hannah et al. 2011). The
prosocial leadership development process demonstrated a process
model that not only provided a description of such development but
also found that some leaders choose to remain nascent in their
development.
5. Driven by American cultural values that emphasize individualism,
leadership theories have largely concerned themselves with individ-
ual leadership qualities as the chosen modality (Edwards 2015). The
result has been leadership theories that focus on individual traits and
behaviors, and on the critical role of followers and organizations
(Evers and Lakomski 2013).
6. Individual actions are a means to form, enhance or preserve identity
and to enable the individual to endeavor to live in consistency with
this identity; this individual formation is accomplished by relational
exchanges (Walker 2004; Blasi 1983).
7. Whether regarded as solidarity (Lindenberg et al. 2006) or sociali-
zation (Eisenberg 1986; Farrant et al. 2012), past formative experi-
ences or antecedents are an important formative and developmental
element for individuals. Again, most leadership theories ignore con-
sideration of antecedents in leadership development (Hannah et al.
2011).
8. Goals that are developmental in nature regulate and guide a leader’s
development by helping him or her prioritize and select the goals
that best represent who they want to become (Lord and Brown
2003; Rogers 1959). In the prosocial leadership development pro-
cess, goals play a dynamic and important role in helping the leader
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 179
develop. Goals play a largely instrumental role, with the terminal

goal being the person’s idealized self or projected representative.
9. Group membership or alienation elicits varying responses but can
make a person feel vulnerable. The “in-group”/“out-group” classi-
fication (Fiske 2000) is in some measure responsible for the vulner-
abilities felt by the emerging leader. However, some individuals
transcend this bifurcation and create groups that are broadly more
inclusive and to which anyone can belong (Oliner 1992; Schwartz
1999).
10. Courage enables the expression of personal views and values, and
confronts the risk of being rejected. Courage, or more specifically
moral courage, is vital for individuals who want to be able to become
more themselves (Lopez et al. 2003). As a means to muster personal
courage, developing leaders referenced previous exemplar leaders
from their past to get through situations where they felt vulnerable.
Moreover, the prosocial organizational leaders recognized and
engaged with followers to make sure they were encouraged, but in
the end each person had to confront his or her own internal feelings
of vulnerability (Thorup et al. 2012).
11. Self-awareness or mindfulness is present within numerous leadership
theories, and is also found within the prosocial leadership develop-
ment process. Mindfulness allows for self-regulation of thoughts,
emotions and behaviors, and for consistency (McKee et al. 2006).
12. Personal growth occurs when individuals engage with others as
subjects (equals) and thus find personal meaning and truth, which
correspondingly results in the emergence of the desired self. The
emergence of the true self may be the most basic of human needs
(Kierkegaard 2013).
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The unwavering expectation placed upon on leadership to change the world is
appropriate. The numerous initiatives and growing focus on positive leadership
theories are an attestation to the belief that individual leaders (e.g. Muhammad
Yunus) can bring positive and expansive change to the global community. But,
it would be a misguided assumption to believe that these leaders can just be
told the good they should be doing, and then be expected to simply do that
good. Every leader has gone through some form of a development process,
and genuine leaders are not motivated to action with the goal of being a great
exemplar of a leadership theory, they are seeking to be more human, more

themselves. The prosocial leadership development process demonstrates that
individuals can develop into leaders who genuinely care for others, and also lead
organizations to greater care for the world, but these leaders developed away
from their personal insular world, to the world rich with relationships.
While leadership studies have done an admirable job of describing the
exemplar leader and how those with ability and willingness can adhere to
behaviors and actions that are effective in becoming such a leader, they have
largely ignored the human development of the leader. We must now
become convinced that people do not act from their will and reason
alone, that individuals are complex and dynamic, motivated by a set of
values the foster a personal identity, and do so in reference to who they
want to become. We must now replace leadership studies, with leadership
development, if we are to rescue the world that from all appearances is not
able to stop its own destruction.
REFERENCES
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Bradford, D. & Cohen, A. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing
high performance organizations. New York: John Wiley.
Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2014). A (blurry) vision of the future:
How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(6), 1544–1570.
REFERENCES 181
Ciulla, J. B. (2005). The state of leadership ethics and the work that lies before us.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 323–335.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory
and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
Publishing.
Erlbaum.
tory, 45(2), 159–173.
Ewest, T. G. (2015). Sociological, psychological and historical perspectives on the
reemergence of religion and spirituality within organizational life. Journal of
Religion and Business Ethics, 3(2), 1.
New York: Springer International Publishing.
Psychology, 30(3), 299–322.
Quarterly, 16(5), 835–862.
Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the
nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah: Paulist Press.
Godos-Díez, J. L., Fernández-Gago, R., & Martínez-Campillo, A. (2011). How
important are CEOs to CSR practices? An analysis of the mediating effect of the
perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4),
531–548.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.

Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd enl ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lawrence, J. T., & Beamish, P. W. (Eds.). (2012). Globally responsible leadership:
Managing according to the UN global compact. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Arlington: Psychology Press.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(3), 279–301.
McMauley, C., Kanaga, K., & Lafferty, K. (2010). Leadership development systems. In
E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The center for creative
leadership handbook of leadership development (Vol. 122). San Francisco: Wiley.
Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2013). Vision and mental models: The case of
charismatic and ideological leadership. In Transformational and charismatic
leadership: The road ahead (10th anniversary Ed., pp. 125–158). Bingley: Emer-
ald Group Publishing Limited.
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle,
S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management
Annals, 4(1), 403–445.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
As developed in the client-centered framework (Vol. 3, pp. 184–256). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
REFERENCES 183
Rosenberg, A. (2015). Philosophy of social science. Boulder: Westview Press.

Russell, W. G., & Lipsky, D. (2008). The sustainable enterprise fieldbook: When it all
comes together. New York: American Management Association.
Starrett, R. H. (1996). Assessment of global responsibility. Psychological Reports, 78,
535–554.
Tichy, N., & DeVanna, M. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley
Publishers.
APPENDIX 1: DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY FOR
CHAPS. 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9
THE PARTICIPANTS
The first theoretical sampling was drawn from a population who were
determined best suited to address the research question, “What are the
characteristics and developmental process associated with individuals
whose leadership behaviors are prosocial, being motivated by empathy,
resulting in altruistic action?” These participants were uniquely suited to
address the research questions since they were nascent in their leadership
development, as was demonstrated by their self-selection and enrollment in
a leadership certificate program (LCP). The LCP was designed for under-
graduates at a liberal arts college in the Midwest. The LCP was open to
every major on campus. Any student in good academic standing who had
completed five courses, two specified leadership courses and three approved
electives could obtain a certificate in the leadership certificate program. The
students were also required to engage in off-campus community service.
The leadership program was designed for students who wanted an academic
opportunity to cultivate leadership skills. These students self-identified as
leaders and then self-enrolled in the program. The program was designed
through collegial curricular pedagogical construction to bring about
enhanced leadership skills.
Enrollment in the program at the time the research was concluded was
103 students, but enrollment over the eight years of sampling varied. Upon
completion of the program, students were given the assignment to reflect
on their leadership development as a means to understand the various

T. Ewest, Prosocial Leadership, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57808-2
186 APPENDIX 1: DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY FOR CHAPS. 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9
Table A.1 Descriptive Demographic variable N %

statistics of the
sample used Population 419
Adjusted for saturation 153
Gender
Female 100 65
Male 53 35
Age
19 38 25
20 57 37
21 43 28
22 12 8
23 3 2
Year in undergraduate program
3 75 49
4 77 50
5 0 0
5+ 1 1
Year in LCP
2 86 56
3 32 21
4 35 23
Major, academic discipline
Business 40 26
Economics 1 1
Education 9 6
Biology 25 16
Philosophy 0 0
Chemistry 1 1
Music 0 0
Religion 5 2
Social work 5 2
Psychology 10 6
Other 57 37
aspects or phenomena that they regarded as personally important to their

own leadership, and secondarily to reflect on their identities and on the
process of leadership development. These reflections were open to public
access and were regarded as historical public documents. Each reflective
paper contained the noted demographic identifiers in Table A.1, as well as
name-specific identifiers, which have been omitted.
APPENDIX 1: DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY FOR CHAPS. 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9 187
The participants consisted of junior and senior undergraduate students

between the ages of 19 and twenty-two. The participants individually
enrolled in the leadership program.
DATA SOURCES
The data consisted of historical public documents gathered over an eight-
year period ranging from 2004–14. In total there were 419 historical
documents submitted as reflections, from which 153 total documents
were used, limited by theoretical saturation. All 419 documents were sub-
mitted by students upon completion of the program regardless of graduat-
ing year. These reflections asked students to reflect on community service,
previous life experiences, course content and personal motivational values.
These lessons and realizations about leadership were intended to focus
both on beneficial elements of the individual’s personal and professional
development and also were incorporated into all aspects of life. In general,
the reflection paper demonstrated the students’ skills of critical inquiry over
a range of topics pertinent to the components of the minor requirements.
The students explained how the process of learning was enabled by the
students’ community service, previous life experiences, course content and
personal motivational values. Furthermore, students were asked, and the
documents reflected, what the students considered valuable about these
LCP-required experiences and other past and present experiences in their
personal leadership development. Since the documents were public infor-
mation, many students were also available for follow-up clarifying interviews
as part of extended course work. Additional clarification questions were
asked in interviews regarding statements and reflections from their submit-
ted portfolio or as reflected in course assignments that pertained to leader-
ship when students were enrolled in the researcher’s courses.
THE PROCEDURE
All 419 documents were downloaded from the LCP website as PDF doc-
uments, exported into Word (Rich Text Format) and then loaded into
AtlasTi, a qualitative assessment tool for large textual analysis. Initial coding
research was conducted using incident-to-incident coding to best capture
the participants’ perspectives (Charmaz and Mitchell 2001). The coding
began with 2004, using initial coding that was performed until a level of
188 APPENDIX 1: DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY FOR CHAPS. 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9
saturation within the year was achieved. This initial coding process was
followed in the ensuing years until 2014, stopping with each year’s data
when it reached theoretical saturation. After analytic direction was achieved
from the initial coding, the researcher used focused coding, comparing the
initial codes that emerged from the data to determine adequacy of initial
coding. Clarifying questions and reflections were added to the proper
thematic group using the memo function in AtlasTi. Finally, the researcher
used axial coding to determine the nature of the relationship between the
codes, revealing the structure of the studied phenomena.
APPENDIX 2: DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR
CHAP. 10
This research used a mixed-method study, conducted on 43 organizational

founders of SME who had a social mission built into their business opera-
tions. The candidates were selected from the larger pool (n ¼ 43) by
determining if they held and were motivated by prosocial values as deter-
mined by Starrett’s (1996) Global Social Responsibility Inventory. Those
candidates who demonstrated high scores in responsibility to people and
GSR, as determined by Starrett’s high, middle and low adherence parame-
ters, were selected into the final pool (n ¼ 22). The final pool consisted of
business owners who managed a business with sustained profits, had five or
more employees, and had a social mission they measured as an outcome of
business operations. The final 22 business leaders’ demographic statistics are
described in Table A.2. The final 22 organizational leaders were then given
in-person interviews. The interviews were conducted and recorded, and
were based on initial impressions and reporting from a reflective essay on
their personal leadership development. This reflective essay sought to
understand the various aspects or phenomena that the individuals regarded
as personally important to their becoming leaders and the aspects of lead-
ership they believed were vital to managing their social enterprise.
Grounded theory was used to determine what phenomena were present in
the interviewees’ experiences.

190 APPENDIX 2: DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR CHAP. 10
Table A.2 Descriptive statistics of the sample used
Demographic variable N %
Population 43
n 22 48
Gender
Female 4 2
Male 18 8
Age
19–29 3 20
30–39 8 30
40–49 8 40
50–59 2 20
60–65 1 10
66+ 0
Year in business venture
2 1 1
3 5 35
5 8 35
10 5 25
15+ 3 5
Type of business and social cause
Mattress firm/Immigration 1 26
Financial instruction/Poverty 1 1
Hydroponics/Nutrition 1 6
Manufacturing/Unemployment 4 16
Clothing retail/Immigration 2 0
Community center/Nonviolence 1 1
Restaurant/Workplace training 4 0
Consulting/Mental health 3 2
Retail/Fairtrade 3 2
Coffee retailing/Economic dev 2 2
STARRETT’S GLOBAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY INVENTORY

Starrett (1996) continues the work of Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz
(1994), developing the Global Social Responsibility Inventory. Starrett
developed the GSRI using moral values theory as a theoretical framework,
relying heavily on the work of Schwartz (1994), but also creating a codified
summary including other values-theory frameworks. Starrett’s instrument
focuses on Schwartz’ values of stimulation (exciting life), self-direction
(creativity and freedom), universalism (social justice and equity) and benev-
olence (helpfulness). Schwartz’ value of universalism is most central to
APPENDIX 2: DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR CHAP. 10 191
Starrett’s scale. Starrett writes, “These summaries of values provide a cluster

of values associated with global social responsibility, but I believe the
Schwartz universalism value type provides the most representative single
set of values that underlie the Global Social Responsibility Scale” (p. 552).
The GSRI is the only survey that honors the Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz
theory by preserving the opposition of values, and it does so using a
simplified nominal scale. The instrument has 45 items that can be broken
into the categories of GSR, responsibility to people and social conservatism.
Global social responsibly—The social attitude and pattern of behavior
that characterize a good citizen within one’s community and greater soci-
ety, as well as within the global society. This includes attitudes of fairness,
dependability, loyalty and duty towards others. These people show deep
concern for others with a strong sense of justice even at the cost of personal
privilege (Starrett 1996, pp. 535–536).
Responsibility to people—People displaying responsible behavior dem-
onstrate care, altruism, dependability and trustworthiness. Here, no per-
sonal relationship is involved. The emphasis is on personal welfare of others,
and there is no thought of reward. The motivations for these individuals
largely come from a felt moral obligation that accords with their personal
values as if an existing unwritten contract exists between them and others
(Starrett 1996, pp. 535–536).
Social conservatism—This attitude opposes the other two and consists of
nationalistic tendencies, adherence to national authority and even stronger
adherence to religious authority. Moreover, this attitude argues for belief in
a just world, which acts as a rationale for injustice or inequality in the
treatment of others, asserting that in some way people deserve what they
get (Starrett 1996, pp. 537–537).
The GSRI is positively correlated with the responsibility for people scale
and negatively correlated with the social conservatism scale (Starrett 1996).
The instrument has face validity. All items retained in the scale had a
minimum r ¼ .60. The subscales have r ¼ .84 for GSR, r ¼ .74 for
responsibility to people and r ¼ .85 for social conservatism. The category
of GSR has a correlation of r ¼ .76 with the responsibility to people scale,
and of r ¼ .65 with the social conservatism scale. The GSRI is an
instrument that uses a nominal scale that ranges from one to six. The
GSRI is not copyright-protected, and there is no legal requirement to
obtain permission from the author. However, there were multiple attempts
made to contact the author to secure permission.
192 APPENDIX 2: DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR CHAP. 10
JUSTIFICATION FOR USE OF THE GSRI

Nakamura and Watanabe-Muraoka (2006) used Starrett’s (1996) GSRI to
measure the prosocial responsibly levels of high school students in Japan.
This work demonstrated the effectiveness of cross-cultural applications of
the Global Social Responsibility Inventory. Moreover, Nakamura and
Watanabe-Muraoka provided a validity reference between the GSRI and
Iwata’s (1989) Cosmopolitanism Scale. The cosmopolitanism scale uses
internationally neutral measures to determine how close or far away the
participant is from his or her co-workers.
Ridenour (2007) considered the GSRI the standard in measuring
prosocial behavior. Ridenour used the GSRI to determine what type of
correlation exists between religious affiliation and GSR, finding that
students who were religiously affiliated had a stronger positive correla-
tion with global social responsibility. Hopkins (2000) used the GSRI to
examine what the effects of service trips are on a student population,
finding that those students who participated in service trips scored higher
in GSR than those who did not.
DATA COLLECTION METHOD

The first method of collection involved an in-class survey. Permission was
gained but not needed since the research was part of a course assignment.
However, permission was still obtained from the student participants, as
was permission to use and publish research findings. The researcher
guaranteed that all student participants were fully aware of the nature
of the research as well as their personal rights. Each student provided her
or his name and was assigned a coded number to be placed on her or his
survey. The coded number was kept secure by the researcher. All results
were placed in a locked location within the researcher’s office. Any
electronic documents were kept on the researcher’s secure network
server location, which was password-protected.
GROUNDED THEORY METHODOLOGY

All fourteen documents were loaded into AtlasTi, a qualitative assessment tool
for large textual analysis. Initial coding research was conducted using incident-
to-incident coding to best capture the participants’ perspectives (Charmaz and
Mitchell 2001). This initial coding process was followed until theoretical
APPENDIX 2: DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR CHAP. 10 193
saturation was reached. After analytic direction was achieved from the initial
coding, the researcher used focused coding, comparing the initial codes that
emerged from the data to determine the adequacy of initial coding. Finally, the
researcher used axial coding to determine the nature of the relationship
between the codes, revealing the structure of the studied phenomena.
APPENDIX 3: LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH IN THIS
PROJECT
The following outlines the specific limitations of the research discussed in

Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Specific to this sample, which used reflective
leadership journals as source documents, research indicates that reflective
journaling allows leaders to assess the usefulness of personal leadership
development (Jefferson et al. 2014). The majority of the findings from
the individuals in this research were based on reflective journaling, demon-
strating the validity of the findings. But other research suggests more
significant impacts, that reflective journaling can also improve performance
of both individuals and teams (Loo and Thorpe 2002), and bolster aware-
ness development (Jefferson et al. 2014). Densten and Gray (2001) suggest
critical reflection for leadership development. This raises the question of
what role the self-reflective journal played in development over and against
the lived experience described in step ten.
Other general limitations of the quantitative portion of this study include
the following: (1) The study wasn’t able to preclude other motivations for
students choosing to participate in the program. It could be argued that
students who self-select participation in the program would also naturally
score higher in a survey that measures these attitudes. (2) The instruments
do not measure actual behaviors; they only measure the reported attitudes
of participants. (3) The study is only representative of one year, one school
and one particular moment in time and is not wholly transferable to the
general population. (4) Response bias. (5) The first study was conducted on
rural people, and they are regarded as more helpful, while residents of larger
population centers—specifically those above 60,000—are significantly less

196 APPENDIX 3: LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH IN THIS PROJECT
helpful. This study was done in a rural community (Beirhoff 2002; Amato
1983; Steblay 1987). (6) Limitation of the instrument (GSRI) using self-
report measures, which ask participants to reflect upon their personal
behaviors, attitudes and moral compass. Therefore, any response depends
heavily on the leader’s willingness to be honest and reach a level of self-
awareness. (7) Some might consider 22 participants in the second study a
small sample, but the established themes that emerged from the prior larger
sample found theoretical articulation and saturation with this sample. How-
ever, the size of the sample is also sufficient, according to Strauss and Corbin
(1998).
REFERENCES
AfDBGroup. (2014, May 22). High level event II – Leadership for the Africa we
want – Kigali, Wednesday 22 May 2015 [Video File]. Retrived from https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v¼zbGZaykJ5iU
Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership:
Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can
be authentic. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 118–131.
Allen, A. L. (2004). The new ethics: A guided tour of the twenty-first century moral
landscape. New York: Miramax.
Altizer, C. (2017). Mindfulness: Performance, wellness or fad? Strategic HR Review,
16(1), 24–31.
Amato, P. R. (1983). Helping behavior in urban and rural environments: Field
studies based on a taxonomic organization of helping episodes. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 45, 571–586.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (DSM-5®). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Aristotle. (1958). Nicomachean ethics (trans: Ross, W. D.). In J. D. Kaplan (Ed.),
The pocket Aristotle (pp. 158–274). New York: Washington Square Press.
Armfield, J. M. (2006). Cognitive vulnerability: A model of the etiology of fear.
Clinical Psychology Review, 26(6), 746–768.
34(3), 325–374.

198 REFERENCES
Avenanti, A., Bueti, D., Galati, G., & Aglioti, S. M. (2005). Transcranial magnetic
stimulation highlights the sensorimotor side of empathy for pain. Nature Neu-
roscience, 8(7), 955–960.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organi-
zations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-
building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25.
Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. (2009). Leadership: Currently theories,
research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
Bannon, D. (2008). Unique Korean cultural concepts in interpersonal relations.
Translation Journal, 12(1).
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transfor-
mational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,
146(1), 51–64.
Bares, A. (2008). Companies spend an average of $1202 per employee on training.
(Web blog). Retrieved from http://compforce.typepad.com/compensation_fo
rce/2008/02/companies-spend.html
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership:
Toward the development and test of a model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81,
851–861.
Barner, J. R., Okech, D., & Camp, M. A. (2014). Socio-economic inequality,
human trafficking, and the global slave trade. Societies, 4(2), 148–160.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transforma-
tional leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of
prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and
action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the
group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656–1666.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). Image theory: Principles, goals, and plans in
decision making. Acta Psychologica, 66(3), 201–220.
REFERENCES 199

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (2007).
Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Benefiel, M., Fry, L. W., & Geigle, D. (2014). Spirituality and religion in the
workplace: History, theory, and research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,
6(3), 175.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Berkovich, I. (2014). Between person and person: Dialogical pedagogy in authentic
leadership development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2),
245–264.
Bird, A. (2013). Mapping the content domain of global leadership competencies. In
M. Mendenhall et al. (Eds.), Global leadership: Research, practice, and develop-
ment (pp. 80–96). New York: Routledge.
Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2001). Developing social change agents: Leadership devel-
opment for the 1990s and beyond. In S. F. C. L. Outcault (Ed.), Developing
non-heirarchical leadership on campus: Case studies and best practices in higher
education (pp. 34–39). Westport: Greenwood.
Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and
connecting with others through mindfulness, hope and compassion. Boston: Harvard
Business Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2006). Doing justice intelligently in civil society. Journal of Social
Issues, 62(2), 393–409.
Brett, J. F., & Vande Walle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as
predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(6), 863–873.
200 REFERENCES
Brocato, B., Jelen, J., Schmidt, T., & Gold, S. (2011). Leadership conceptual
ambiguities: A post-positivistic critique. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1),
35–50.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational
leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(2), 227–250.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring
new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(04), 583–616.
Brown, M. E., & Trevi~no, L. K. (2002, August). Conceptualizing and measuring
ethical leadership: Development of an instrument. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2002(1), D1–D6. Academy of Management.
Scribner’s Sons.
Bueno, C. M., & Tubbs, S. L. (2004). Identifying global leadership competencies:
An exploratory study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 80–87.
Burford, N. (2014). Decolonizing pedagogy: Critical consciousness and its impact
on schooling for Black students. Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto,
College of Humanities.
Burrows, P. B. (1981). Parent orientation and member-leader behavior: A measure
of transference in groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 31(2),
175–191.
Burston, A. S., & Tuckett, A. G. (2013). Moral distress in nursing: Contributing
factors, outcomes and interventions. Nursing Ethics, 20(3), 312–324.
Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2014). A (blurry) vision of the future:
How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(6), 1544–1570.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:
Cavanagh, G. F., & Moberg, D. J. (1999). The virtue of courage within the
organization. Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations, 1, 1–25.
Chang, A. (2011, August 30). American apparel’s in-house guru shows a lighter
side. Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/30/business/
la-fi-robert-greene-20110726
REFERENCES 201
Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G. (2001). Grounded theory in ethnography. In

Handbook of ethnography (pp. 160–174). London: Sage.
Christie, A., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2011). Pseudo-transformational leadership:
Model specification and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12),
2943–2984.
Ciulla, J. B. (2009). Leadership and the ethics of care. Journal of Business Ethics, 88
(1), 3–4.
Ciulla, J. B. (2013). Leadership ethics. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd..
Ciulla, J. B. (2014). Leadership ethics: Expanding the territory. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.),
Ethics, the heart of leadership. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Colby, A., Gibbs, J., Lieberman, M., & Kohlberg, L. (1983). A longitudinal study of
moral judgment, A monograph for the society of research in child development.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and
leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence
constructive and destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3),
386–401.
Colman, A. M. (2015). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
Cowan, D. (2005). Translating spiritual intelligence into leadership competencies.
Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion., 2(1), 1–33.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crosby, L., Bitner, M., & Gill, J. (1990). Organizational structure of values. Journal
of Business Research, 20(2), 123–134.
202 REFERENCES
Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2013). Developing leadership
character in business programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
12(2), 285–305.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of
intentionality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5),
615–634.
Davis, S. (2015). Developing global-minded leaders to drive high performance. New
York: American Management Association.
Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
Day, L. (2005). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies. Boston:
Cengage Learning.
Routledge.
Journal, 25(5), 466–475.
De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. (2006). Self-
sacrificial leadership and follower self-esteem: When collective identification
matters. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 233.
Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., & Meltzoff, A. N.
(2004). The neural bases of cooperation and competition: An fMRI investiga-
tion. NeuroImage, 23(2), 744–751.
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227–268.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and
rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(3), 265–291.
Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. H. (2001). Leadership development and reflection: What
is the connection? International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3),
119–124.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. York: Penguin
books.
REFERENCES 203
Donia, M. B., Raja, U., Panaccio, A., & Wang, Z. (2016). Servant leadership and
employee outcomes: The moderating role of subordinates’ motives. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(5), 722–734.
Publishing.
Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation,
moral judgment, and moral behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Multidimensionality of prosocial behavior.
In L. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multi-
dimensional approach (pp. 17–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-related
responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup
relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Van Den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus
team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 717–730.
Elliott, D., Silverman, M., & Bowman, W. (Eds.). (2016). Artistic citizenship:
Artistry, social responsibility, and ethical praxis. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Emmons, R. (2003). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality
in personality. New York: Guilford Press.
Erkutlu, H. V., & Chafra, J. (2006). Relationship between leadership power bases
and job stress of subordinates: Example from boutique hotels. Management
Research News, 29(5), 285–297.
terly, 1(04), 355–365.
tory, 45(2), 159–173.
Studies, 9(3), 53–54.
Ewest, T. (2015a). Christian identity as primary foundation to workplace ethics.
Religions, 12, 22–30.
204 REFERENCES
Ewest, T. (2015b). The relationship between transformational leadership practices

and global social responsibility. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1).
Ewest, T. G. (2015c). Sociological, psychological and historical perspectives on the
reemergence of religion and spirituality within organizational life. Journal of
Religion and Business Ethics, 3(2), 1.
New York: Springer International Publishing.
Fairclough, A. (1995). Martin Luther King, Jr. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Farrow, T. F., & Woodruff, P. W. (Eds.). (2007). Empathy in mental illness (Vol. 1).
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the
future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 241–250.
Psychology, 30(3), 299–322.
Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2006). Learning and framing in social exchange. In
Solidarity and prosocial behavior (pp. 45–60). Dordrecht: Springer.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., &
Hein, M. B. (1992). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A
synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245–287.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(6), 693–727.
Quarterly, 16(5), 835–862.
Gaiha, R. (2003). Are millennium goals of poverty reduction useful? Oxford Devel-
opment Studies, 31(1), 59–84.
Galli, E. B., & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leader-
ship development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm.
REFERENCES 205
Gans, H. J. (1988). Middle American individualism: The future of liberal democracy.

New York: Free Press.
George, B., & Sims, P. (2003). True North: Discover your authentic leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gerland, P., Raftery, A. E., Ševčíková, H., Li, N., Gu, D., Spoorenberg, T., & Bay,
G. (2014). World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science, 346
(6206), 234–237.
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
Berkley: University of California Press.
Routledge.
Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design and motivation to make a prosocial differ-
ence. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.
Grant, A. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and
Journal, 55(2), 458–476.
Green, M., & McGill, E. (2011). The 2011 state of the industry: Increased commit-
ment to workplace learning. T + D. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/TD/
Archives/2011/Nov/Free/Nov_11_Feature_State_of_the_Industry.htm
Greene, R. (2000). The 48 laws of power. New York: Penguin.
power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Grint, K. (2010). Leadership: A very short introduction (Vol. 237). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts
reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 841–845.
Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention and Treatment,
3(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.3.1.33c, http://psycnet.apa.
org/journals/pre/3/1/3c/.
Hall, D. T., & Seibert, K. W. (1992). Strategic management development: Linking
organizational strategy, succession planning, and managerial learning. In D. H.
Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development. Theory and practice
(pp. 255–275). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
206 REFERENCES
Hamachek, D. (2000). Dynamics of self-understanding and self-knowledge: Acqui-

sition, advantages, and relation to emotional intelligence. The Journal of Human-
istic Counseling, 38(4), 230.
Hardy, S., & Carlo, G. (2005a). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human
Development, 4, 232–256.
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005b). Religiosity and prosocial behaviors in adoles-
cence: The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34(2),
231–249.
Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the DSM-IV
criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100
(3), 391.
Hawley, P. H. (2014). Evolution, prosocial behavior, and altruism. In Prosocial
development: A multidimensional approach (p. 43). New York: Oxford University
Press.
HERI. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook: Version
III. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and
mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership
theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1165–1185.
Hodgson, G. M. (2007). Meanings of methodological individualism. Journal of
Economic Methodology, 14(2), 211–226.
REFERENCES 207
Hopkins, S. (2000). Effects of short-term service ministry trips on the development of

social responsibility in college students. Unpublished doctoral thesis, George Fox
University, Newberg.
House, R. J., & Hanges, P. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others.
New York: Macmillan.
Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness,
and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 135–154.
International Forum for Human Development. (2006). Social justice in an open
world: The role of the United Nations. New York: United Nations.
Jameton, A. (1992). Dilemmas of moral distress: Moral responsibility and nursing
practice. AWHONN’s Clinical Issues in Perinatal and Women’s Health Nursing,
4(4), 542–551.
Jefferson, J. K., Martin, I. H., & Owens, J. (2014). Leader development through
reading and reflection. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 67–75.
shadow. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(3), 199–216.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2013). Ethical leadership
and follower helping and courtesy: Moral awareness and empathic concern as
moderators. Applied Psychology, 62(2), 211–235.
Kälvemark, S., H€oglund, A. T., Hansson, M. G., Westerholm, P., & Arnetz,
B. (2004). Living with conflicts-ethical dilemmas and moral distress in the health
care system. Social Science & Medicine, 58(6), 1075–1084.
Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Think-
ing about the future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 593–620.
Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage, digital distrust: Ethics in a troubled world.
Business and Society Review, 110(4), 485–505.
Kierkegaard, S. (1987). Either-or part II (trans: Hong, E., & Hong, H.). Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
208 REFERENCES

Koerner, M. M. (2014). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage.
Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 63–93.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get
away with it in the study of moral development. New York: Academic.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1998). Student leadership practices inventory:
Facilitator’s guide. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc.
Kumru, A., & Yagmurlu, B. (2014). Prosocial behaviors toward siblings and grand-
parents. In L. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A
multidimensional approach (pp. 327–349). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kurlansky, M. (2011). Cod: A biography of the fish that changed the world. Toronto:
Vintage Canada.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading: Addison-Wesley/Addison Wesley
Longman.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lee, C. (1995). Prosocial organizational behaviors: The roles of workplace justice,
achievement striving and pay satisfaction. Journal of Business & Psychology, 10(2),
197–206.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a
theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management
Review, 24(1), 31–48.
REFERENCES 209
Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2002). Using reflective learning journals to improve
individual and team performance. Team Performance Management: An Interna-
tional Journal, 8(5/6), 134–139.
Lord, R., & Brown, D. (2004). Leadership process and follower identity. London:
Routledge.
ships, 14(4), 441–461.
Koehler.
Lynskey, D. (2012, December 3). Robert Greene on his 48 laws of power: ‘I’m not
evil – I’m a realist’. The Guardian.
MacIntyre, A. (2003). A short history of ethics: A history of moral philosophy from the
Homeric age to the 20th century. London: Routledge.
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2014). Conscious capitalism, with a new preface by the
authors: Liberating the heroic spirit of business. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Press.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(3), 279–301.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009).
How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.
McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: The lessons
of international experience. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
handbook of leadership development (Vol. 29). San Francisco: Wiley.
McCloskey, M. (2014). Learning leadership in a changing world: Virtue and effec-
tive leadership in the 21st century. New York: Springer.
210 REFERENCES
McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A
measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103(5), 830.
McMauley, C., Kanaga, K., & Lafferty, K. (2010). Leadership development systems.
In E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The center for
creative leadership handbook of leadership development (Vol. 122). San Francisco:
Wiley.
McNulty, S. E., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1994). Identity negotiation in roommate
relationships: The self as architect and consequence of social reality. Journal of
Mendenhall, M., & Osland, J. (2002). Mapping the terrain of the global leadership
construct (p. 29). San Juan: Academy of International Business.
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real
leader please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 441–457.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national
natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological
capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 231–246.
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in
service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32.
Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2013). Vision and mental models: The case of
charismatic and ideological leadership. In Transformational and charismatic
leadership: The road ahead (10th anniversary Ed., pp. 125–158). Bingley: Emer-
ald Group Publishing Limited.
Nakamura, M., & Watanabe-Muraoka, A. (2006). Global social responsibility:
Developing a scale for senior high school students in Japan. International Jour-
nal for the Advancement of Counseling, 28(3), 213–226.
Nash, L. L. (2009). Ethics without the sermon. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Niebuhr, H. R. (1999). The responsible self: An essay in Christian moral philosophy.
Westminster: John Knox Press.
Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of controlled
interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9(4), 498.
Noam, G. G. (1993). “Normative vulnerabilities” of self and their transformations in
moral action. In G. G. Noam & T. E. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 209–238).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
REFERENCES 211

Mahwah: Erlbaum.
O’Leonard, K., & Loew, L. (2012). Leadership development fact book 2012:
Benchmarks and trends in US leadership development. Bersin by Deloitte
(on-line), available at: www. bersin.com/Store/details.aspx
Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The norm activation model:
An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in
pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141–153.
Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral courage?
Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct. In C. L. Pury &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue
Padilla-Walker, L., & Carlo, G. (2015). The study of prosocial behavior: Past,
present and future. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial devel-
opment: A multidimensional approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A
communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle,
S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management
Annals, 4(1), 403–445.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transforma-
tional leaders in organizational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75–96.
Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determi-
nants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 525–537.
Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. (2001). The challenge of leadership accountability for
integrity capacity as a strategic asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3), 331–343.
212 REFERENCES
Petrie, N. (2011). Future trends in leadership development. Greensborough: Center

for Creative Leadership White Paper.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management
Review, 34(2), 29–50.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
Poff, D. C. (2010). Ethical leadership and global citizenship: Considerations for a
just and sustainable future. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 9–14.
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2002). The communication of emotions and the
possibility of empathy in animals. In S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss,
& W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in
dialogue (pp. 284–308). New York: Oxford University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Quinn, L., & Van Velsor, E. (2010). Developing globally responsible leadership. The
center of creative leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Rajnandini, P., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (2004). Fairness perceptions
and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A
two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25(6), 897–933.
Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of corporate moral
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). A neo-Kohlbergian
approach: The DIT and schema theory. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4),
291–324.
Ridenour, J. (2007). The role of spirituality and the impact on social responsibility.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, George Fox University, Newberg.
Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2008). Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share
actions and emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosen, R. H. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on business leadership and national
cultures. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rosenberg, A. (2015). Philosophy of social science. Boulder: Westview Press.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Prager.
Rowe, C. J., & Broadie, S. (2002). Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
REFERENCES 213
Rushton, P., Chrisjohn, R., & Fekken, C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the
self-report altruism scale. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 293–302.
Russell, R. F., & Gregory Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
23(3), 145–157.
Scharmer, C. O., & Senge, P. M. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it
emerges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Scherer, K. R., Shorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (Eds.). (2001). Appraisal processes in
emotion: Theory, methods, research. Canary: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.
Schwartz, S. (2007). Commentaries: Cultural and individual value correlates of
capitalism: A comparative analysis. Psychological Inquiry, 18(1), 52–57.
Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial
behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions,
and behavior: The better angels of our nature (Vol. 14, pp. 221–241).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of
altruism. In E. Staub (Ed.), Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior
Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethical challenges in
the workplace: Conceptualizing and measuring professional moral courage. Jour-
nal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 565–579.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and
creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6),
703–714.
214 REFERENCES
Smith, K. T., Martin, H. M., & Smith, L. M. (2014). Human trafficking: A global
multi-billion dollar criminal industry. International Journal of Public Law and
Policy, 4(3), 293–308.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence
and performance the role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership
perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 24(3), 367–390.
Stackhouse, M. (1995). Introductions foundations and purpose. In
M. Stackhouse, D. McCann, S. Roels, & P. Williams (Eds.), On moral business:
Classical and contemporary resources for ethics in economic life. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Stahl, G. K., Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. H. O. M. A. S. (2013). Responsible global
leadership. In Global leadership: Research, practice, and development
(pp. 240–259). New York: Taylor & Francis.
337–349.
Strain, C. R. (2007). Moving like a starfish: Beyond a unilinear model of student
transformation in service learning classes. Journal of College and Character, 8(1),
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2202/1940-1639.1150
The Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative. http://www.grli.org/grli/
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 25–52.
Tichy, N. M. (2009). The cycle of leadership. New York: Harper Collins.
Tichy, N. M., & Cohen, E. (1997). The leadership engine. New York: Harper
Collins.
Toor, S. U. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships
with full range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational cul-
ture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533–547.
Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (1994). Business ethics/business ethics: One field
or two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 113–128.
REFERENCES 215
304–311.
Veatch, R. M. (2016). The basics of bioethics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Walker, J. T. (2001). Walker leadership development of students engaged in experi-
ential learning: Implications for internship programs in textiles and apparel.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina Greensboro,
NC.
Wallimann, I., Tatsis, N. C., & Zito, G. V. (1977). On Max Weber’s definition of
power. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 13(3), 231–235.
Weaver, G. (2001). Ethics programs in global businesses: Culture’s role in managing
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 3–15.
77–97.
Weber, M. (2009). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Routledge.
Wheatley, M. (2011). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world. San Franscico: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.
Whetstone, J. T. (2001). How virtue fits within business ethics. Journal of Business
Ethics, 33(2), 101–114.
White, R. D., Jr. (2014). Drawing the line. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewics
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance.
New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Whitehead, G. (2009). Adolescent leadership development building a case for an
authenticity framework. Educational Management Administration & Leader-
ship, 37(6), 847–872.
216 REFERENCES
Wicker, B., Keysers, C., Plailly, J., Royet, J. P., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2003).
Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling
disgust. Neuron, 40(3), 655–664.
Wilfred, H., & Paulus, J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as a meaning
making in a community of practice, issues and observations. Center for Creative
Leadership, 21.
Williams, E. S. (1994). Tying up loose ends: The role of transformational leadership in
OCBs commitment, trust and fairness perceptions. Paper presented at the meeting
of the southern management Association, New Orleans, LA.
Wong, C. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic
leadership and nurses’ voice behavior and perceptions of car quality. Journal of
Nursing Management, 18(8), 889–900.
Woodard, C. R. (2004). Hardiness and the concept of courage. Consulting Psychol-
ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 173.
Yap, A., & Tong, E. M. W. (2009). The appraisal rebound effect: Cognitive
appraisals on the rebound. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9),
1208–1219.
Yellin, E. S. (2013). Racism in the nation’s service: Government workers and the color
line in Woodrow Wilson’s America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press Books.
Yoo, B. W. (1988). Korean Pentecostalism: Its history and theology (Vol. 52).
New York: Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly
Review of Management, 15(4), 251–289.
89(1), 29.
Zimmerman-Treichel, M. A., Dunlap-Hinkler, D., & Washington, M. L. (2003).
Top management team diversity: Does gender diversity influence firm performance?
Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Seattle, WA.
INDEX
A C
altruism citizenship, 3, 5, 6, 49, 54, 71, 72, 122
Batson’s definition, 51 global, 3, 5–7, 49
as found in leadership theories, 3, 30, Ciulla, Joanne, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 34,
34, 46, 53–6, 82, 178 46, 75, 81, 177
antecedents, 4, 17, 34, 46, 50, 63, 64, coaching, 66, 67, 164, 165, 169, 170,
69, 72, 74–6, 84–6, 89, 91, 173–5
97–113, 141, 150, 153, 161, 165, commitment to group or community,
170, 176, 178 85, 165
anti-social leaders, 45 conscious capitalism, 9
authentic leadership (AL), 12, 29, 30, corporate social responsibility (CSR), 5,
55, 56, 70, 72, 102, 141, 172 7, 162
courage
Aristotle, 135
B courage and action, 84, 85, 88,
Bass, Bernard, 29, 35, 54, 129, 175 135–46, 161, 165
Batson, Daniel, 3, 45, 46, 50, 51, 81,
82, 88, 91, 92, 106, 107, 124, 127,
161, 178 D
Beirhoff, Hans-Werner, 17, 54, 55, 86, De Cremer, 18, 54, 73, 83, 91, 117,
91, 107, 196 122, 128
Blasi, Agusto, 14, 37, 74, 91, 110, 144,
157, 178
Brown, Douglas, 102, 105, 124, 129, E
178. See also Lord, Robert Eisenberg, Nancy, 15, 37, 74, 86, 91,
Brown, Michael, 2, 17, 26, 29, 31, 36, 104–6, 108, 123, 178
54–6, 75, 88, 91, 92, 172 Emmons, Robert, 110
Buber, Martin, 44, 126 emotional responsiveness, 85, 86, 91,
Burns, James, 17, 23, 29, 30, 44, 71 98, 99, 103–5, 152, 165, 167

218 INDEX
empathy interpersonal, 85, 87, 88, 91, 118,

empathetic concern, 45, 51, 52, 54, 119, 122, 125–30, 137, 141,
91, 111, 165, 167 143, 145, 150, 154, 165, 168
neuroscience, 52 intrapersonal, 50, 85–8, 91, 98, 99,
punishments, 3, 12, 51, 53, 107 106–13, 118–20, 122, 123,
relationship to altruism, 3, 4, 7, 17, 125, 127–9, 131, 137, 141,
50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 81, 85, 127, 143, 145, 150, 151, 154, 157,
128, 130, 137, 150, 178 165, 167, 176
rewards, 3, 12, 51, 53, 107, 119, 127 Greenleaf, Robert, 17, 31, 56, 174
envisioning, 164, 165, 169–72, 175
ethics
classical ethical theories, 27–34, 54, H
177 han, 136
as found in leadership theories, 3, Hernandez, Morela, 5, 6, 23, 127, 177
5, 15–17, 23–39, 44, 46, 53,
54, 56, 57, 64, 69, 76, 81, 82,
177 I
Ewest, Timothy, 2, 4, 7, 12, 18, 27, 45, innovation, 2, 33
53, 54, 83, 149, 178 applied to technology, 2
integration, 84, 85, 87, 90, 91, 98–100,
106, 109–12, 118, 119, 127, 129,
F 130, 136, 137, 140, 145, 146, 150,
Fiske, Susan, 123, 179 151, 154, 157, 158, 170, 176
Freeman, Edward, 7, 162
Fry, Louis (Jody), 4, 17, 31, 45, 56,
71–3, 89, 153, 172, 174 J
Johnson, Craig, 17, 23, 25, 31, 75
G
Giddens, Anthony, 87, 91, 122 K
global leadership Kierkegaard, Soren, 14–16, 156, 179
competencies, 65
Organizational Behavior, 10
globalization, 6 L
technology, 1, 2 leadership
Globally Responsible Leadership competencies, 65–7
Initiative, 8, 9 development methods, 5, 64, 66–8,
goals 75, 76
coalescence, 85, 88, 91, 136, 137, development process, 3, 5, 44, 57, 65,
143, 144, 146, 165, 168, 170 66, 68, 72, 75, 76, 81, 85, 98,
future, 85, 89, 91, 149–51, 154, 155, 102, 111, 112, 118, 120, 130,
158, 167, 169, 171 136, 138, 140, 141, 143, 145,
INDEX 219
149, 150, 152–8, 163, 165, R

167–71, 176, 178, 179 Rawls, John, 29, 47, 177
levels of moral reasoning, 32 religion, 15, 26, 34, 35, 37, 48, 73, 149,
cases, 32 186
Lord, Robert, 4, 102, 105, 129, 178. Rokeach, Milton, 17, 46–51, 105, 110,
See also Brown, Douglas 124, 154, 190, 191
M S
mindfulness, 70, 72, 89, 149, 152–4,
Scharmer, Otto, 71, 142
158, 179
Schwartz, Shalom, 15, 17, 46–51, 81,
morals
86, 92, 105, 107, 110, 124, 153,
compared to ethics, 54, 65, 66, 68,
154, 178, 179, 190, 191
72, 140, 177
self-awareness, 28, 30, 31, 37, 85, 87,
moral distress, 135, 136, 139, 146
89, 91, 98–103, 105, 112, 119,
120, 150, 152, 153, 165, 167, 170,
176, 179, 196
N
self-view, 102, 105
normative ethics
servant leadership (SL), 12, 29–31, 33,
action, 35, 69, 73
55, 56, 174
values, 34
social change model (SCM), 30, 55, 71,
virtue, 33, 35
72, 142, 153
Northhouse, Peter, 23, 24, 28, 35, 83
socialization, 16, 48, 86, 99, 102–4,
178
spirituality, 149
P
Principles of Response Management Stackhouse, Max, 26, 27
Education (PRME), 10, 81 stakeholder theory, 7
projected representative (PR), 84–6, Starrett, David, 46–50, 54, 163,
89–91, 98–101, 106–12, 118, 119, 189–92
121, 125, 128–30, 136–8, 141, stewardship
143–6, 150, 151, 156–8, 170, 172, academic definition, 6
176, 179 popular definition, 7
prosocial behavior, 3, 4, 12, 16–18,
43–57, 65, 68, 75, 76, 86, 92, 104,
106, 128, 141, 192 T
prosocial leadership Theory U, 72, 142
definition, 4, 11, 44, 57, 66, 118, Tichy, Noel, 69, 101, 175
130, 136, 137, 146, 149, 150, transformational leadership (TL), 4,
158, 170, 176 12, 29, 30, 54–6, 71, 121, 172,
established leadership theories, 4, 12, 38 174, 175
220 INDEX
U ultimate, 16, 51, 54, 99, 119, 144, 155

United Nations (UN) Veatch, Robert, 32–5
Global Compact, 8–10
Millennium goals, 3
utility leadership, 13, 14, 25, 36, 51 W
Weaver, Gary, 15, 37, 73, 110
Weber, Max, 43
V Wheatly, Margret, 98
values world economic forum, 97
egoism, 34, 51
instrumental values, 46–8, 50, 54,
105, 110 Y
terminal values, 46, 47, 50, 105 Yurkl, Gary, 23

Timothy Ewest (Auth.) - Prosocial Leadership - Understanding The Development of Pro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Timothy Ewest (Auth.) - Prosocial Leadership - Understanding The Development of Pro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Timothy Ewest (Auth.) - Prosocial Leadership - Understanding The Development of Pro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITHIN LEADERS AND

ISBN 978-1-137-57741-2 ISBN 978-1-137-57808-2 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017946737

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover illustration: Sitade / Getty images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

1 The Need for Prosocial Leaders 1

2 The Challenges Within Ethical Leadership Theories 23

3 What Is Prosocial Behavior’s Connection to Leadership? 43

4 Perspectives on Leadership Development 63

5 The Prosocial Leadership Development Process 81

6 Stage One: Antecedent Awareness and Empathic Concern 97

7 Stage Two: Community and Group Commitment 117

8 Stage Three: Courage and Action 135

9 Stage Four: Reﬂection and Growth 149

10 Prosocial Leadership Development in Organizational Life 161

Appendix 1: Design and Methodology for

Appendix 2: Design Methodology for Chap. 10 189

Appendix 3: Limitations of Research in this Project 195

Fig. 1.1 Comprehensive responsibility model 8

Table 1.1 The ten principles of the UN Global Compact 9

Table 8.1 Components of stage three 137

The Need for Prosocial Leaders

© The Author(s) 2018 1

corporations. The multiplicity of examples illustrating the reality of the

Most of all, advances in technology just increase our ability to do things,

Yet, even if innovation applied to technology can resolve some of the

authentic others-directed leaders. More importantly, this book goes beyond

The world needs to understand how to develop leaders whose allegiance

Speciﬁc to This Book

NEED FOR GLOBAL CITIZENS?

FROM GLOBAL CITIZENS TO STEWARDS

The concept of stewardship incorporates both the taking of personal

Fig. 1.1 Comprehensive responsibility model (Ewest, © Greenleaf Publishing)

INITIATIVES TO RAISE UP GLOBAL STEWARDS

Table 1.1 The ten principles of the UN Global Compact

developing globally responsible leaders. The Globally Responsible Leader-

Table 1.2 Six principles of PRME

Principle 1 | Purpose: We will develop the capabilities of students to be future generators of

the importance of the organization and its ﬁnal connection to communities,

leadership that is supportive and considerate, demonstrating compassion

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP

Prosocial Leaders are motivated by and respond to empathy, and without

The prosocial leader may be an exemplar within other existing and

ORIGINS OF PROSOCIAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

Therefore, humans’ self-actualizing tendency is dependent on relation-

THE FORESIGHT OF KIERKEGAARD

For Kierkegaard, the mode of existence one chooses corresponds to

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN LEADERS

Chap. 3 (Latham and Locke 1991; Schwartz 1994; Zimmerman and

Hopkins, S. (2000). Effects of short-term service ministry trips on the development of

Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determi-

The Challenges Within Ethical Leadership

© The Author(s) 2018 23

This chapter considers the history of research regarding leadership ethics,

LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS: AN UNFOLDING HISTORY