Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study is to know if ethical theories could be connected to some leadership approaches. Design/methodology/approach In the paper eight leadership approaches are selected: directive leadership, self‐leadership, authentic leadership, transactional leadership, shared leadership, charismatic leadership, servant leadership, transformational leadership. Five western ethical theories (philosophical egoism, utilitarianism, Kantianism, ethics of virtue, ethics of responsibility) are analyzed to see to what extent their basic concepts could be connected to one or the other leadership approach. Findings A given ethical theory (such as philosophical egoism) could be suitable to the components of various leadership approaches. Ethical leadership does not imply that a given leadership approach is reflecting only one ethical theory. Rather, ethical leadership implies that for different reasons, various leadership approaches could agree with the same ethical theory. This is what we could call the “moral flexibility of leadership approaches”. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on western ethical theories. A similar study should be undertaken for Eastern ethical theories coming from Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, or Daoism. Practical implications Some dualisms (such as Kantianism‐transformational leadership, philosophical egoism‐transactional leadership) do not reflect the philosophical connections between ethical theories and leadership approaches. Thus, the notion of ethical leadership would have to be redefined. In doing so, the paper reveals how a given ethical theory could be used by different kinds of leaders, and for very different reasons. Originality/value This study will contribute to make ethical theories and ethical leadership more interconnected, in spite of the different (parallel) “conceptual universes” in which they have evolved until now.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it