Pearce,
Craig, and Charles Manz. "Leadership Centrality And Corporate Social
Ir-Responsibility (CSIR): The Potential Ameliorating Effects Of Self And Shared
Leadership On CSIR." Journal Of Business Ethics 102.4 (2011):
563-579. Business Source Complete. Web. 23 June 2012.
The unethical
behavioral of executives has negative effects on employees, shareholders, and
other stakeholders of the company. The unethical behavior of top executives,
from companies such as Enron and Worldcom, has highlighted the topic of
corporate social responsibility. These executives overstated the earnings of
their companies in order to receive higher compensations. They were acting in
their own self-interest and there were no checks and balances. This article examines
the two types of leadership, from Pearce’s 1997 study, that should use to
prevent corporate social irresponsibility by executives
The article suggests that a
combination of both strong self-leadership and shared-leadership are required
to keep executives from committing irresponsible behavior. Self-leadership and
shared-leadership are alternatives to the more common centralized leadership. Self-leadership
is managing oneself, being both a leader and follower. Self-leadership helps
reduce centralized leadership. In shared-leadership the leadership is
decentralized and shared among the different leaders. Shared-leadership helps
create checks and balances. The authors believe that using these two forms of
leadership creates a balance of power.
The authors believe that you must have
both strong self-leadership and shared-leadership. Having a strong form of
either leadership and a weak form of the other will not reduce corporate social
irresponsibility. A strong self-leadership and a weak shared-leadership can
lead to individual corporate social irresponsibility. A weak self-leadership
and strong shared-leadership can create group think among the executives.
The recommendation made by the authors could very well help promote CSR but at the same time, be antagonistic to the operations of the firm. We know how leadership styles can greatly affect the performance of a company. So what safeguards do the authors recommend to make sure that these leadership styles will serve both CSR and the management of the firm?
ReplyDelete