Ethical and Relational Leadership

Ethical and Relational Leadership Leaders are in positions of power and their decisions impact others: therefore, it is imperative that their values should have strong ethical foundations and, above all, that these be aligned with external behaviors and actions that advance the common good.

Olivier Serrat 12/12/2019

1 Wheatley (1992) noted that "Leadership is always dependent on the context but the context is established by the relationships we value" (p. 144). In a subsequent edition, Wheatley (2010) drove home more points about relationality, the state or condition of being relational: "Certainly, relationships are a growing theme in today's leadership thinking. For many years, the prevailing maxim of management stated: 'Management is getting things done through others.' The important thing was the work; the 'others' were distractions that needed to be managed into conformity and predictability. But now most of us have had to acknowledge that we are human, with our own insistent needs and gifts" (pp. 224–225). Leaders are in positions of power and their decisions impact others: therefore, it is imperative that their values should have strong ethical foundations and, above all, that these be aligned with external behaviors and actions that advance the common good.

A Key Component of Organizational Leadership Wheatley (1992, 2010) was right: what with repeated scandals about leaders,1 emerging theories of leadership have since the onset of the new millennium engaged in subtle discussions about ethical leadership, relational leadership,2 and ethical–relational leadership.

These days, ethical and relational leadership summon up a profusion of related terms (and associated theories): in his coverage of ethical leadership, Yukl (2014) included authentic, servant, and spiritual leadership (pp. 340–359). Therefore, what follows comes under the denomination of ethical leadership only (but of course embraces relationality). That said, overlaps and occasional disagreements matter not: as Heifetz (1994), cited in Yukl (2014), explained "… there is no ethically neutral ground for theories of leadership, because they always involve values and implicit assumptions about proper forms of influence" (p. 341).

Paraphrasing Vielmetter and Sell (2014), the contemporary paradigm is that "doing the right thing" is more than a moral obligation: it is a critical success factor in ethicized, transparent climate in which power is transferred by leaders to their stakeholders. And so, "Altrocentric leaders integrate ethical values, social responsibility, and concerns for health, safety, and the environment into their decision making. They continually seek innovative ways to improve business performance while contributing to the greater good" (Vielmetter & Sell, 2014).3 Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association and Student Rights and Responsibilities of the Chicago School of Professional Psychology Ethics, that Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines as "the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group", involve systematizing, defending, and recommending behavior. With the 1

Yukl (2014) wrote that "Powerful leaders can have substantial impact on the lives of followers and the fate of an organization … Powerful leaders can advance their own careers and economic gains at the expense of organization members and the public. Moreover, by making unethical practices appear to be legitimate, a leader can influence other members of the organization to engage in 'crimes of obedience'" (p. 340).

2 Noting earlier that it was a relatively new term in the leadership literature, Uhl-Bien (2006) defined relational leadership as "a social influence process through which emergent coordination (i.e., evolving social order) and change (e.g., new values, attitudes, approaches, behaviors, and ideologies) are constructed and produced" (p. 655). Komives, Lucas, and McMahon (2007) mapped out its primary characteristics to be purposeful, inclusive, empowering, ethical, and process-oriented.

3 Altrocentric is a neologism that Vielmetter and Sell (2014) coined to oppose egocentric. (Alter means "other" in Latin.) Altrocentric leaders understand that leadership is a relationship: therefore, they focus on others rather than on themselves.

2 remarkable expansion and evolution of its critical theory, the foregoing made the point that questions of ethics have become central to leadership. But, there is more: here and there, statements on ethics have come to express internal values and eternal behaviors deemed of critical importance.

A. The American Psychological Association As the study of the mind and behavior, psychology requires certain ethical guidelines when dealing with people as subjects: frequent topics that invoke a practitioner's moral responsibility relate to confidentiality, debriefing, deception, informed consent, and right to withdraw. The code of conduct enshrined in the American Psychological Association (APA)'s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2019)—aka APA Ethics Code—"provides a common set of principles and standards upon which psychologists build their professional and scientific work ‌ It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline" (p. 3).

In its latest form,4 the APA Ethics Code includes an introduction, a preamble, five general principles, and 10 ethical standards that psychologists must adhere to in practice, research, and education across a variety of contexts. In the event of violation, the APA may impose sanctions ranging from termination of APA membership to removal of licensure, and may notify other bodies and individuals of its actions. Currently, the five general principles of the APA Ethics Code are (a) beneficence and nonmaleficence, (b) fidelity and responsibility, (c) integrity, (d) justice, and (e) respect for people's rights and dignity. The principles serve as ideals to which psychologists should aspire: they do not explicitly inform or instruct adherence. Currently also, the 10 ethical standards have to do with (a) resolving ethical issues, (b) competence, (c) human relations, (d) privacy and confidentiality, (e) advertising and other public statements, (f) record keeping and fees, (g) education and training, (h) research and publication, (i) assessment, and (j) therapy. The standards are enforceable rules that psychologists must consider in the context of a professional relationship. Other professional organizations and licensing boards are invited to adopt and enforce the APA Ethics Code. Recurring issues have to do with the boundary between personal and professional life, even if the APA Ethics Code states that psychologists do not need to adhere to the guidelines outside their professional roles. (The argument is that public's perception of a psychologist's behavior in his/her personal time may have detrimental effects on professional relationships with clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others.) On occasion, the APA has sometimes also taken (or been made to take) a public stance on controversial issues; to note, the 2005 Presidential Task Force Report on Psychological Ethics and National Security rubber-stamped the Bush Administration's claim that psychologists serve to keep detention and interrogation operations safe, legal, ethical, and effective.

Triangulation always shines light. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), to name one other association, is the world's largest professional society, representing 285,000 members in more than 165 countries: the SHRM Code of Ethics covers (a) professional development, (b) ethical leadership, (c) fairness and justice, (d) conflicts of interest, and (e) use of information, with each concern articulated around a core principle, a statement of intent, and guidelines (Society for Human Resource Management, 2019). Intriguingly, the APA Ethics Code and the SHRM Code of Ethics share few similarities: at heart, the principles of the former emphasize respect for the value and agency of human beings; the compass of the standards is 4

The APA first published the APA Ethics Code in 1953.

3 comprehensive and directional, the tone almost religious, and violation brings sanctions; the principles of the latter are driven by narrower, utilitarian concerns that are not especially colored by anxiety over right and wrong; they read much as terms of reference do. The only principle that the APA Ethics Code and the SHRM Code of Ethics share relates to justice. In the former, resolving ethical issues is a standard that every man and woman must obey; in the latter, ethics is—as a matter of principle only—the business of leadership (and, it follows, no one else).

Likewise, privacy and confidentiality is an enforceable rule of the former; use of information, its nearest approximation in the latter, is but a principle there. In a word, the two codes are a world apart even though both have to do with people.

B. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology The Chicago School of Professional Psychology's statements on Ethical, Legal, and Professional Conduct are found in The School's compendium of Student Rights and Responsibilities (2019): they pertain to (a) compliance with institutional policies and procedures, (b) criminal background check, (c) professional comportment, (d) a statement of academic integrity (dealing with cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication), (e) a student code of conduct, (f) sexual misconduct, (g) suspension or revocation of a professional license, and (h) use of computing resources. The statement on Professional Comportment explains that The School recognizes the importance of personal and professional competencies (in addition to traditional academic skills) and aims to boost these: "As an apprentice of professional psychology, the student is holistically evaluated by all members of the learning community on standards of professional performance, development, and functioning that include, but are not limited to, interpersonal and professional competence …; self-awareness and self-reflection …; openness to feedback; and proactive, engaged resolution of issues that may interfere with professional development or functioning" (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 2019).

Elsewhere, the Student Code of Conduct stipulates that "A student is required to behave in a manner that is suitable for professional study and practice." and "Additionally, a student is prohibited from engaging in conduct that is detrimental to The School, poses a threat to the welfare of The School's employees or students, is prohibited by school policies, or is illegal" (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 2019). While it is impossible to list all types of misconduct, the Student Code of Conduct identifies a dozen activities that will subject a student to disciplinary action.

Dilemmas in Assessing Ethical Leadership The APA Ethics Code and The School's statements on Ethical, Legal, and Professional Conduct are par for the course and it is hard to find in them anything to contend with. But, especially if one operates from a position of leadership, what values, motives, and behaviors drive ethical behavior will (as remarked earlier) ineluctably translate into influence.5 And, as Yukl (2014) made abundantly clear, influence is itself a source of ethical concern that may involve fueling enthusiasm for a risky strategy or project, persuading followers to change their underlying values, and influencing decisions that will benefit some at the expense of others (p. 342). In that respect, Gabriel's (2008) metaphors of "boundary riders" and "process sentinels" can serve as valuable allies of ethical practice (even if they were developed in the context of psychotherapy).6 5

Ethical leadership is related to a leader's traits but necessarily occurs in a social context.

Paraphrasing and summarizing, a boundary is a limit line that the "boundary rider" monitors and maintains to preserve the limit and extent of a given relationship. A "process sentinel" is the guardian of a relationship: it maintains and develops relational content, process, and progress (Gabriel, 2008).

6

4

Living and Advocating Ethics: Principles for Current and Future Leaders Informed by understanding of what dilemmas can arise from positions of influence, an ethical leader is a person who—from cultivated concern for such values as altruism, empathy, empowerment, fairness and justice, humility, integrity, and personal growth—lives up to principles of ethical conduct he/she deems crucial.

At its Annual Meeting in Davos in 2015, the World Economic Forum dedicated one of its opening panels to the question of leadership in the modern world (Seidman, 2015). The panel concluded that only principled, ethical leadership will survive the challenges ahead and offered six principles. Citing in extenso: • Stop and Think—Pausing creates an oasis of composure amid the chaos; it sharpens our awareness. With refined focus, we can connect our consciousness with our conscience.

Active pausing is the heart of ethical decision-making, because it encourages reflection and lessens the likelihood of knee-jerk reactions.

• Extend Trust—Aristotle taught us that the virtue of trust lies in giving it away. Ethical leaders should know that the best way to be trusted is to trust others.

• Have Two-Way Conversations—Leaders used to be able to say: 'It's my way or the highway.' Now, they need to engage with colleagues, customers, and other stakeholders with mutual respect. Acting in a vacuum does not work …

• Demonstrate Moral Authority—Ethical leaders realize their power isn't over people but through people. Leaders can enlist people in any cause if there is a sense of a common mission and shared values. … What unites [leaders] is what animates them: principled convictions. To achieve real impact, leaders should rely on moral authority.

• Shape the Context—Ethical leadership requires reconnecting with your deepest values and re-examining how you think, behave, and make decisions. This means reminding others what you stand for and leading by example.

• Lead with Purpose—Now more than ever, success is a by-product of pursuing a higher purpose. … Ethical leadership means doing the 'next right thing' and not the 'next thing right'. … In the new global context, choosing between what's practical and what's principled is a false choice; as Aristotle explained, the highest good is both practical and principled.

(Seidman, 2015) Toward a New Modus Vivendi in Organizational Leadership In the 21st century, organizations expect that leaders will behave ethically and encourage employees to do the same. Predictably, ethical leadership theories highlight the importance of values; but, they overlook the fact that ethical leadership is not individualized, decontextualized, or power-neutral. The real value of relationality is to interpret ethical leadership as a relational, contextual, and therefore political practice (as the differences between the APA Ethics Code and the SHRM Code of Ethics demonstrate). Relationality helps ethical leaders understand, if they cannot necessarily always offset, what ethical dilemmas come with influence (Liu, 2017).

And so, research into how relationships form and develop in the workplace will do much to nurture and then institute a new modus videndi in organizational leadership. Immediately, the aforementioned principles for ethical leadership invite application by virtue of the accent they give to relationality (Seidman, 2015).

5 References American Psychological Association. (2007). Guidelines for education and training at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels in consulting psychology/organizational consulting psychology. American Psychologist, 62(9), 980–992.

American Psychological Association. (2019). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. (2019). Student rights and responsibilities.

Retrieved from http://catalog.thechicagoschool.edu/content.php?catoid=44&navoid=2178 Gabriel, L. (2008). Relational ethics, boundary riders, and process sentinels: Allies for ethical practice. Based on a program presented at the ACA Annual Conference & Exhibition, Honolulu, HI. Komives S., Lucas N., & McMahon, T. (2007). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Liu, H. (2017). Reimagining ethical leadership as a relational, contextual, and political practice.

Leadership, 13(3), 343–367.

Seidman, D. (2015, March 16). Six key principles for ethical leadership. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/six-key-principles-for-ethical-leadership/ Society for Human Resource Management. (2019). Code of ethics. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/pages/code-of-ethics.aspx Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676 Vielmetter G., & Sell, Y. (2014). Leadership 2030: The six megatrends you need to understand to lead your company into the future. AMACOM. Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Wheatley, M. (2010). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Yukl, G. (2014). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.