1200 words Article Review Using Gibb’s Reflective Cycle

Requirements APA STYLE

1. Brief Introduction to Gibbs’ Cycle of reflection, How it is used to review articles

2. Abstract

3. Introduction

4. Body( According to rules of Gibbs cycle) (Give personal examples and references)

a) Description

b) Feelings

c) Evaluation

d) Analysis

e) Conclusion

f) Action Plan

5. Conclusion

6. Critically analyse the article using Elements of Thoughts i.e

Purpose should be clear , Clarity is the main motive

Accuracy : Information provided should be accurate

Depth: Deeply review and criticize the article,

Logic: Entire article should be logically organised

7. References at least 8 ( References should be from peer review articles, textbooks, journals )

8. NOTE: All references MUST HAVE: authors, publication dates, and publishers. “Anonymous” authors, and sources without dates or publishers will not be accepted as valid sources and marks will be deducted.

1. Read the posted article called “Business Leadership: Three Levels of Ethical Analysis” and write an article review discussing your understanding of the model presented and how it relates to leadership.

2. Write the article as if you are the author; everywhere introduce yourself as the author eg.

The author believes…

The author criticises….. etc

3. Use the Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle to discuss concepts in the article and relate them to how you personally deal with these types of situations.

4. Provide example(s) to substantiate and analyze concepts from the Three Levels of Ethical Analysis paper.

5. Discuss how your actions relate to the three levels in the paper.

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Prebles’ Artforms Twelfth Edition

Chapter 25

Postmodernity and Global Art

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Learning Objectives (1 of 2)

25.1 Describe the principal characteristics of postmodern and recent architecture.

25.2 Discuss some of the changes in painting styles since the 1980s

25.3 Identify the postmodern influence on contemporary photography.

25.4 Discuss the materials, techniques, and functions of contemporary sculpture.

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Learning Objectives (2 of 2)

25.5 Contrast examples of contemporary art produced for public spaces.

25.6 Discuss some causes artists have supported with socially conscious artworks.

25.7 Define the movement known as Post-Internet Art.

25.8 Explain the influence of globalism on contemporary art.

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Introduction

• Urge to rebel against the norm lost impact when rebellion became normal. – Few rules left to break

• Present-generation artists prefer to comment on life rather than perfect form, create beauty, or fine-tune sight.

– Relationships between what we see and how we think

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Architecture (1 of 4) 25.1 Describe the principal characteristics of postmodern and recent architecture.

• A departure from sterile, glass-box look – Buildings no longer all the same

• Venturi and Scott-Brown, Learning from Las Vegas – Urged architects to study the local, vernacular, and tacky

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Architecture (2 of 4) 25.1 Describe the principal characteristics of postmodern and recent architecture.

• Michael Graves, Public Services Building – Formal and playful – Elements without structural function

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Michael Graves. Public Services Building. Portland, Oregon. 1980–82. Photograph: Nikreates/Alamy. [Fig. 25-1]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Architecture (3 of 4) 25.1 Describe the principal characteristics of postmodern and recent architecture.

• Frank Gehry, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao – New shapes made possible by three-dimensional computer modeling

• Today’s architects try to make visually stunning buildings that fulfill function.

• Thom Mayne – Gates Hall at Cornell University

▪ Four-story atrium with glass exterior walls ▪ Exterior panels of perforated stainless steel

– Filter sunlight while promoting views ▪ “Light, light, light”

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Thom Mayne and Morphosis. Gates Hall, Cornell University. 2014–15. Photograph: Roland Halbe.

[Fig. 25-2]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Architecture (4 of 4) 25.1 Describe the principal characteristics of postmodern and recent architecture.

• Artists finding low-tech solutions to local problems

• Kunlé Adeyemi – Community radio station for impoverished waterside settlement in Nigeria

▪ Welcoming dock ▪ Deck serves second purpose as an amphitheater

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Kunlé Adeyemi. Chicoco Radio Station, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. 2014. Courtesy of NLÉ, the architects. [Fig. 25-3]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Painting (1 of 5) 25.2 Discuss some of the changes in painting styles since the 1980s.

• Neo-Expressionism – Susan Rothenburg

▪ Symbolic, heavily brushed works ▪ Muted palette with little color ▪ Juggler with Shadows

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Susan Rothenberg. Juggler with Shadows. 1987. Oil on canvas. 72-1/4” × 124-1/4”.

The Eli and Edythe L. Broad Collection. © 2018 Susan Rothenberg/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. [Fig. 25-4]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Painting (2 of 5) 25.2 Discuss some of the changes in painting styles since the 1980s.

– Anselm Kiefer, Osiris and Isis ▪ Symbolic, mythology-loaded

– Indestructible creative forces of nature ▪ Heavily textured surface

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Anselm Kiefer. Osiris and Isis. 1985–87. Oil, acrylic, emulsion, clay, porcelain, lead, copper wire, and circuit board on canvas.

150” × 220-1⁄2” × 6-1⁄2”. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Purchased through a gift of Jean Stein, by exchange;

the Mrs. Paul L. Wattis Fund, and the Doris and Donald Fisher Fund. Photograph by Ben Blackwell. © Anselm Kiefer. [Fig. 25-5]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Painting (3 of 5) 25.2 Discuss some of the changes in painting styles since the 1980s.

• Kerry James Marshall, Better Homes Better Gardens – Optimistic but not idealistic depictions – Couple walks down flowered pathway in a low-rise setting – Projects as places of community and neighborhood feeling despite whatever else

may happen there

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Kerry James Marshall. Better Homes Better Gardens. 1994. Acrylic and collage on canvas. 8’4” × 12’.

Denver Art Museum Collection: Funds from Polly and Mark Addison, the Alliance for Contemporary Art, Caroline Morgan, and Colorado Contemporary Collectors: Suzanne Farver, Linda and Ken Heller, Jan and Frederick Mayer, Beverly and Bernard Rosen, Annalee and Wagner Schorr, and anonymous donors, 1995.77. Photograph © Denver Art Museum. Courtesy Jack Shainman Gallery, New York. All

Rights Reserved. [Fig. 25-6]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Painting (4 of 5) 25.2 Discuss some of the changes in painting styles since the 1980s.

• Relational Aesthetics – Rose across various media in the 1990s – Artist renounces control over the development and final appearance of the work – Artists created situations that depended on the viewer – Angela Bullock, Betaville

▪ Motion sensor paints lines on wall in response to viewer movements ▪ Work evolves over course of exhibition

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Angela Bulloch. Betaville. 1994. Drawing machine with switch bench. Drawing approx. 10’ × 10’.

Photograph © Fredrik Nilsen. Courtesy of Esther Schipper, Berlin. [Fig. 25-7]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Painting (5 of 5) 25.2 Discuss some of the changes in painting styles since the 1980s.

• Mary Weatherford, Oxnard Ventura – Flashe, a new type of acrylic paint – Embeds handmade neon tubes into works

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Mary Weatherford. Oxnard Ventura. 2014. Flashe and neon on linen. 112-1/2” × 100” × 4-3/8”.

Photograph: Fredrik Nilsen. Courtesy of David Kordansky Gallery, Los Angeles, CA. [Fig. 25-8]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Photography (1 of 3) 25.3 Identify the postmodern influence on contemporary photography.

• Medium not objective as today’s cameras can lie

• Cindy Sherman, Untitled Film Still #48 – Represents “teen movies” where misunderstood daughter runs away – Part of a series depicting women’s roles in film

▪ No references to specific films ▪ Stereotypes ironically recycled

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Cindy Sherman. Untitled Film Still #48. 1979. Black-and-white photograph.

Courtesy of the artist and Metro Pictures. [Fig. 25-9]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Photography (2 of 3) 25.3 Identify the postmodern influence on contemporary photography.

• Vik Muniz, Atlas (Carlão) – Arranged huge amounts of trash on studio floor then photographed it – Noble image of garbage collector

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Vik Muniz. Atlas (Carlão). 2008. From the series Pictures of Garbage. Photograph.

Photograph: Vik Muniz Studio. © Vik Muniz/Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY. [Fig. 25-10]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Photography (3 of 3) 25.3 Identify the postmodern influence on contemporary photography.

• Hassan Hajjaj, Kesh Angels – Moroccan-born photographer undermines stereotypes – Women wearing Muslim veils on motorcycles – Ironic version of product placement

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Hassan Hajjaj. Khadija. 2010. Metallic Lambda print on 3mm white Dibond. 53-1/2” × 36-3/4”.

Taymour Grahne Gallery, New York. [Fig. 25-11]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sculpture (1 of 3) 25.4 Discuss the materials, techniques, and functions of contemporary sculpture.

• Exploration of the value of shape – Anish Kapoor, To Reflect an Intimate Part of the Red

▪ Shapes recalling ancient religious structures sprinkled with powder ▪ Ritualistic

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Anish Kapoor. To Reflect an Intimate Part of the Red. 1981. Pigment and mixed media. Installation 78” × 314” × 314”.

Photograph: Andrew Penketh, London. Courtesy of Barbara Gladstone. [Fig. 25-12]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sculpture (2 of 3) 25.4 Discuss the materials, techniques, and functions of contemporary sculpture.

• Exploration of materials – Almost any substance or object – Rachel Harrison, This Is Not an Artwork

▪ Fake vegetables, wig model, cheap table and more objects ▪ Meditation on what is real versus representation

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Rachel Harrison. This Is Not an Artwork. 2006. Wood, polystyrene, cement, acrylic, table, fake vegetables, plastic surveillance camera, mannequin,

wig, cowboy hat, stickers, and plastic KISS figure with drum. 59” × 22” × 22”.

Courtesy of the artist and Greene Naftali, New York. Photograph: Jean Vong. [Fig. 25-13]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sculpture (3 of 3) 25.4 Discuss the materials, techniques, and functions of contemporary sculpture.

• 3-D printers the newest technology available to artists – Josh Kline, Tastemaker’s Choice

▪ Begins with high-resolution photos ▪ Creates 3-D models

– Adjusts size, color, texture

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Josh Kline. Tastemaker’s Choice. 2012. Six 3-D printed sculptures in acrylic-based photopolymer, various liquids, commercial shelving with

LED lights. 36-1/2” × 26-1/8” × 15-1/2”. Courtesy of the artist and 47 Canal, New York. Photograph: Joerg Lohse. [Fig. 25-14]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Public Art (1 of 4) 25.5 Contrast examples of contemporary art produced for public spaces.

• Art that responds to the needs and hopes of broad masses of people

• Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial – “Initial act of violence” in cutting the land – Peaceful, reflective black granite surface – Names of dead and missing inscribed in chronological order by date of death

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Public Art (2 of 4) 25.5 Contrast examples of contemporary art produced for public spaces.

• Mandate that one-half of one percent the cost of public buildings be spent on art to embellish them

• Buster Simpson, Instrument Implement: Walla Walla Campanile – Computer encodes data from water temperature, flow level, dissolved gases and

plays a musical tone – Hourly auditory update on river’s health

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Buster Simpson. Instrument Implement: Walla Walla Campanile. 2008. William A. Grant Water & Environmental Center, Walla Walla Community College, Walla Walla, WA.

Height 25’ 6”. Courtesy of the artist. [Fig. 25-15]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Public Art (3 of 4) 25.5 Contrast examples of contemporary art produced for public spaces.

• Can be made in almost any medium

• Catherine Opie, Somewhere in the Middle – Series of photographs taken from same spot during all seasons – Installed in Cleveland hospital

▪ Walking down corridor gives sense of slow passage of time

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Catherine Opie. Untitled #8. From series Somewhere in the Middle. 2011. Inkjet print. 50” × 37-1/2”. © Catherine Opie. Courtesy of Regen Projects, Los Angeles. [Fig. 25-16]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Public Art (4 of 4) 25.5 Contrast examples of contemporary art produced for public spaces.

• Street art – When artists take initiative to create works for public view without waiting for a

commission – Often created or installed illegally

▪ Some have permission of the property owner

• Banksy – Most famous street art creator of today – Stone Age Waiter

▪ Witty depiction of cave man in the restaurant district ▪ Stencil-and-spray-paint

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Banksy. Stone Age Waiter. 2006. Spray paint and stencils. Height 5' 6".

Outdoor location, Los Angeles. Photograph: Patrick Frank. [Fig. 25-25]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Socially Conscious Art (1 of 3) 25.6 Discuss some causes artists have supported with socially conscious artworks.

• Many artists seek to link art to current social questions – Limiting art to aesthetic matters provides a distraction from pressing problems

• Barbara Kruger, Untitled... – Invented slogan, hand positioning – Provoked questions of whether products define us, if we “are” what we shop for – Later silkscreened onto a shopping bag

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Barbara Kruger. Untitled (I Shop Therefore I Am). 1987. Photographic silkscreen/vinyl. 111” × 113”.

© Barbara Kruger. Courtesy: Mary Boone Gallery, New York. [Fig. 25-18]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Socially Conscious Art (2 of 3) 25.6 Discuss some causes artists have supported with socially conscious artworks.

• Some art transforms social problems into work that pulls us in

• Tiffany Chung, UNHCR Red Dot Series – Depicts flow of Syrian refugees over an eight-month period

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Tiffany Chung. UNHCR Red Dot Series—Tracking the Syrian Humanitarian Crisis: April-Dec 2012 (detail). 2014–15. Oil and ink on vellum and paper. 8-1/4” × 11-3/4”.

Courtesy of the Artist and Tyler Rollins Fine Art, NY. [Fig. 25-19]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Socially Conscious Art (3 of 3) 25.6 Discuss some causes artists have supported with socially conscious artworks.

• Theaster Gates, Sanctum – Created performance space in ruined church in Bristol, England – Seeks to create spaces to improve communities

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Theaster Gates. Sanctum. 2015. Temple Church, Bristol, UK. 29 October–21 November 2015. © Theaster Gates. Photo © Max McClure. Courtesy Situations. [Fig. 25-20]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Post-Internet Art (1 of 3) 25.7 Define the movement known as Post-Internet Art.

• Art that responds to our current networked condition – May or may not use the Internet itself – Show awareness of or comment on the Internet and social media

• Rafael Rozendaal, 15 05 10 IMDb – Weaving commissioned from a tapestry factory – Wrote software program that converts any web page into an abstract composition

▪ Made available Abstract Browsing available for free

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Rafael Rozendaal. 15 05 10 IMDb. 2015. From series Abstract Browsing. Jacquard weaving. 56-3/4” × 104-3/4”.

Image courtesy of the artist and Steve Turner. [Fig. 25-21]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Post-Internet Art (2 of 3) 25.7 Define the movement known as Post-Internet Art.

• Artie Vierkant – Calls works “image objects” instead of sculptures – Creates imagery out of installation shots of previous exhibitions

▪ Work collapses past and present

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Artie Vierkant. Image Object Thursday 4 June 2015 12:53PM. 2015. Aluminum and vinyl. 49” × 49” × 38”.

Courtesy of the artist. [Fig. 25-22]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Post-Internet Art (3 of 3) 25.7 Define the movement known as Post-Internet Art.

• Hito Steyerl, Factory of the Sun – Disjointed meditation on surveillance and sharing – Video installation

▪ Collage of news reportage, documentary film, video games, and Internet dance videos

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Hito Steyerl. Factory of the Sun. 2015. Single-channel high-definition video, environment, luminescent LE grid, bear chains. 23 minutes. Image courtesy of the artist and Andrew Kreps Gallery, New York. © 2018 Artists Rights Society

(ARS), New York/SABAM, Brussels. [Fig. 25-23]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Global Present (1 of 5) 25.8 Explain the influence of globalism on contemporary art.

• World united through Internet, travel, mobile phones, and migration

• Globalization of culture profoundly affects art – Union of cosmopolitan and local

• Imran Queshi, You Who Are My Love and My Life’s Enemy Too – Pakistani artist – At first looks like puddles of blood – Flowers and petals in representational style – Work reflects artist’s life in city rocked by violence but hopeful

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Imran Qureshi. You Who Are My Love and My Life’s Enemy Too. 2015. Acrylic paint on canvas. 83” × 185”.

Courtesy Galerie Thaddeus Ropac, London · Paris · Salzburg. © Imran Qureshi. Photograph: Charles Duprat. [Fig. 25-24]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Global Present (2 of 5) 25.8 Explain the influence of globalism on contemporary art.

• Naomi Wanjiku Gakunga, Routes of Migration – Kenyan artist noticed shades and colors on corroded tin roofs – Combines corroded sheet metal with other non-art material – Alludes to migrant crisis

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Naomi Wanjiku Gakunga. Routes of Migration. 2015. Sheet metal, steel wire, poultry wire and fabric. 96” × 96”.

Photograph: N. Wanjiku Gakunga. Courtesy October Gallery, London. [Fig. 25-25]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Global Present (3 of 5) 25.8 Explain the influence of globalism on contemporary art.

• Doris Salcedo, Plegaria Muda – Empty, paired tables with grass growing between suggests empty space – Prayer for the victims of civil strife

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Doris Salcedo. Plegaria Muda (Silent Prayer). 2008–10. Wood, mineral compound, metal and grass. 166 units as installed at CAM, Fundação Calouste

Gulbenkian, Lisbon, November 12, 2011–January 22, 2012. Photograph: Patrizia Tocci. Image courtesy Alexander and Bonin, New York. [Fig. 25-26]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Global Present (4 of 5) 25.8 Explain the influence of globalism on contemporary art.

• Ai Weiwei, Circle of Animals/Zodiac Heads – Heads of creatures in the Chinese zodiac

▪ Atop a column that resembles a spout of gushing water – References to tense moments in East–West relations – Alludes to ancient fountain in Beijing mostly destroyed by French and British troops

in 1860

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Ai Weiwei. Circle of Animals/Zodiac Heads. 2010. Bronze. 12 units, average height 10’.

Grand Army Plaza, New York City. Private Collection. Images courtesy of the artist and AW Asia. Photograph: Adam Reich. [Fig. 25-27]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The Global Present (5 of 5) 25.8 Explain the influence of globalism on contemporary art.

• Ai Weiwei: Global Visual Activist – Father was a dissident poet sent to labor camp for five years – Artist studied animation techniques, photography – Devoted to performance art in China – Activism prompted by deadly earthquake

▪ Interviewed parents who lost children because of poor government-funded construction ▪ Citizen investigations unheard of in China

– Freedom remains at risk – Currently working on a documentary about migrants from Middle East

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Ai Weiwei at the Royal Academy of Arts. Guy Corbishley/Alamy Live News. [Fig. 25-28]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Conclusion

• Renzo Piano, Whitney Museum of American Art – Openness to the outside – Nested in its environment

• Art comes from basic feelings that all of us share. – Goes beyond mere physical existence

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. 2015. Entrance. Architect: Renzo Piano Building Workshop. VIEW Pictures Ltd/Alamy Stock Photo.

[Fig. 25-29a]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. 2015. Gallery and exterior wall. Architect: Renzo Piano Building Workshop. VIEW Pictures Ltd/Alamy Stock Photo.

[Fig. 25-29b]

Copyright © 2019, 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Copyright

Business Leadership: Three Levels

of Ethical Analysis Daniel E. Palmer

ABSTRACT. Research on the normative aspect of

leadership is still a relatively new enterprise within the

mainstream of leadership studies. In the past, most aca-

demic inquiry into leadership was grounded in a social

scientific paradigm that largely ignored the ethical sub-

stance of leadership. However, perhaps because of a

number of public and infamous cases of failure in business

leadership, in recent years there has been renewed interest

in the ethical side of leadership in business. This paper

argues that ethical issues of leadership actually arise at

number of different levels, and that it is important to

distinguish between various diverse kinds of ethical issues

that arise in the study of leadership. The three levels

identified are the level of the individual morality of

leaders, the level of the means of their leadership, and the

level of the leadership mission itself. We argue that only

by fully understanding all of the different levels of ethical

analysis pertinent to business leadership, and the distinc-

tive kind of issues that arise at each level, can we fully

integrate normative studies of leadership into the field of

leadership studies. As such, this paper offers a model that

incorporates three different levels of ethical analysis that

can be used to study normative issues in leadership

studies. Such a model can be used to better understand

and integrate ethical issues into research, teaching, and

training in leadership.

KEY WORDS: authenticity, leadership studies, moral

character, respect, responsibility, telos, virtue theory

Leadership studies is a well-established field of

business research, and much effort has been put into

delineating the nature and characteristics of leader-

ship in the business world (see, Antonakis et al.,

2004; and Weber, 1997). For most of the history of

leadership studies, researchers focused primarily

upon empirical questions concerning the nature of

leadership: questions concerning the characteristics

possessed by successful leaders or various models of

leadership style (Antonakis et al., 2004). The aim of

such research could be summarized in terms of the

attempt to achieve a better understanding of what

makes for effective leadership. However, as Joanne

Ciulla points out, much less attention was paid in the

literature to ‘‘the ethics of how they lead or the

moral value of their achievements’’ (Ciulla, 2003,

p. vi). Perhaps precisely because leadership studies in

the twentieth century were largely grounded in the

social scientific paradigm (Ciulla, 2002, p. 339), the

normative underpinnings of leadership went largely

unexplored. This is not to say that various moral

qualities of leaders were not commonly noted or

even advocated for, but that when such normative

considerations were raised, they were seen as largely

incidental to the study of leadership itself. However,

in recent years there has been a growing recognition

that there are a number of reasons for believing that

the normative side of leadership must be more fully

incorporated into the mainstream of leadership

studies.

One reason for this renewed interest of the ethical

side of leadership studies is that, at the practical level,

the spectacular business failures involved in well-

known cases such as Enron, WorldCom, Firestone,

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 15th

International Symposium on Ethics, Business, and Society at

the IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barce-

lona, Spain.

Daniel E. Palmer is an Associate Professor in the Department of

Philosophy at Kent State University, Trumbull Campus.

His research focuses mainly upon issues of ethical theory and

applied ethics, particularly business and professional ethics.

He is the co-editor of Stakeholder Theory: Essential Readings

in Ethical Leadership and Management (Prometheus, 2008)

and has published articles in such journals as Business Ethics

Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, and The Journal of

Value Inquiry.

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 88:525–536 � Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0117-x

and more recently in the sub-prime mortgage

banking industry, all involved failures of leadership.

Those who watched the stories of these cases unfold

recognized the strong role that executive leaders

played in the events that led to these business crises

(see, for example, Sison, 2003). Further, because of

the serious impact the events in these cases had upon

employees, customers, investors, and the community

at large, witnesses to them rightly recognized that

their proper analysis must involve a moral compo-

nent. In short, many people correctly recognized

that the failures of leadership involved were not

merely pragmatic failures to achieve business goals,

though they were in the end no doubt that too, but

ethical failures as well. Likewise, as Jay Conger

points out, as executive compensations have sky-

rocketed in recent years, far beyond comparative

growth in the salaries of other employees, a greater

spotlight has been put upon the value of these

executives’ leadership (2005). Are the ever growing

compensation packages justified by the leadership

that those who receive them provide? Are such

highly paid leaders really acting in the best interest of

the corporations that they lead, or are they merely

promoting their own self-interest? Questions such as

these have inevitably led to more concern for the

ethical foundations of leadership.

In conjunction with such practical concerns that

focused attention on the ethics of leadership in the

public’s eye, the limitations of the purely social sci-

entific paradigm of studying leadership were also

being challenged at the conceptual level. Again,

Joanne Ciulla, who has been at the forefront of the

recent move toward the normative analysis of lead-

ership studies, forcefully argues that there is an

essential ambiguity in the notion of good leadership

that is the focus of leadership studies (2004, p. 308).

The notion of good leadership can have both a

purely pragmatic sense and a normative sense. In the

first sense, good leadership simply means instru-

mentally effective leadership, while in the second

sense the meaning of good leadership implies ethi-

cally responsible leadership. Unfortunately, the social

scientific paradigm common in leadership studies

typically adopted the first notion without clarifying

its connection to the second. For this reason, Ciulla

and others involved in the normative turn in lead-

ership studies argue that we need to supplement

the social scientific studies of leadership with a

normative account of leadership that seeks to clarify

the ethical sense of good leadership as well as its

connection to the more pragmatically grounded

conception of good leadership.

While Ciulla and others have done much to clarify

such questions about the normative nature of lead-

ership, in this paper my goal is to further advance this

agenda by offering a model for conceptualizing the

role of ethical considerations in leadership studies. My

aim in this regard is twofold. One, I will argue that

ethical issues of leadership actually arise at a number

of different levels, and that it is important that we

distinguish between various kinds of ethical issues that

arise in the study of leadership. In this regard, I will

offer a model that incorporates three different levels of

ethical analysis that can be used to study normative

issues in leadership studies. Such a model can be used

to better understand and integrate ethical issues into

research, teaching, and training in leadership. In

offering such a model though, I will also argue for a

particular view of the nature of good leadership in

business. In this regard, I will argue that a robust

account of good leadership will make it clear as

to why normative considerations are intrinsic to

understanding the nature of business leadership itself.

The essential nature of leadership

Before delving into a consideration of the ethics of

leadership, something must first be said about the

nature of leadership itself. This task is a bit more

difficult than it might appear at first, for despite the

decades of research on leadership there still remains

a number of divergent approaches to identifying the

nature of leadership. In a wide-ranging survey of

the history of the literature on leadership studies,

Joseph Rost (1991) found hundreds of different

definitions of leadership. Indeed, Bernard Bass notes

that ‘‘there are almost as many different definitions

of leadership as there are persons who have

attempted to define the concept’’ (2007, p. 16). To

further complicate matters, leadership is often

defined contextually, as for instance, in contrast to

management (Kotter, 2007). While everyone seems

to be able to intuitively recognize instances of

leadership, arriving at a precise definition of lead-

ership for the purposes of scholarly inquiry has not

proven to be an easy task.

526 Daniel E. Palmer

Indeed, when looking at the vast array of defi-

nitions of leadership that have been provided, one

might be led to conclude ‘‘the meaning of leadership

may depend on the kind of institution in which

it is found’’ (Bass, 2007, p. 16). However, without

claiming to be able to provide a complete or com-

prehensive definition of leadership, I nonetheless do

think that when looking at the literature concerning

its definition, we can arrive at what I will call a core

concept of leadership. This core notion of leader-

ship, I would argue, is essential to any complete

notion of the concept, and can be seen as an element

of any of the various definitions previously pro-

posed. My own view is that the various competing

definitions of leadership are arrived at by building on

the core notion of leadership in different ways, or

by accenting the elements of the core notion in

different manners or in relation to different contexts.

Thus, while I will not argue for a complete defini-

tion of leadership in this paper, I will maintain that

any plausible notion of leadership will include the

core element discussed here. In this view, leadership,

at its core, essentially involves influencing others to

act in light of a vision of how best to achieve a

shared mission.1

This core notion properly gets out two aspects

essential to the idea of leadership: that leadership

involves motivating others to act and to do so in

light of some common aim. There are, of course,

lots of different ways in which people can be

influenced to act: ranging from threats of force to

appeals to the common good, but all leadership seeks

to move others to act. However, the attempt to

move others to action, while a necessary element of

leadership, is by no means sufficient for explaining

what leadership involves. For what is also distinctive

about leadership is that it seeks to move others to

action in light of some purpose, and some purpose

that is offered not merely as the purpose of the leader

herself, but as a purpose for those who are moved to

act (see, for instance, Antonakis et al., 2004;

Greenleaf, 2003; Kotter, 2007; and Weber, 1997). In

this regard, Jack Weber rightly notes that ‘‘increas-

ingly the notion of leadership is most commonly

associated with the notion of vision’’ (1997, p. 364).

There are two further points concerning the core

definition of leadership offered here that are worth

noting. First, it makes it clear why leadership is

better thought of as a function than as a specific role,

a point now widely recognized in the literature on

business leadership (Kotter, 2007). Persons take on

a leadership function whenever they take on the

responsibility for moving others to act in light of a

common mission, and while some persons, such as

CEOs and other high level executives, may exer-

cise that function more often than others because

of their corporate roles, nearly any position within

a corporation, from mid-level manager to sales

clerk, will offer the opportunity for leadership at

some point as well. The recent trend toward

inculcating leadership skills among all levels of

employment is in this regard well founded. Busi-

nesses continue to adopt new modes of organiza-

tion in the light of rapidly developing technologies,

globalization, and new workplace models, and the

leadership function is now more dispersed than

under older hierarchical organizational models

(Weber, 1997).

The core notion of leadership also allows us to see

the difference between the managerial and the lead-

ership function often made use of in the literature of

leadership studies (Kotter, 2007). The managerial

function involves such things as implementing pro-

cesses, allocating resources, monitoring results, and

overseeing day-to-day operations, while the leader-

ship function involves envisioning new directions,

generating strategic change, and inspiring people to

accept and act upon a corporate mission. We should

not conclude from this that the roles of manager and

leader are necessarily different, or that there are two

kinds of individuals, leaders and managers. The same

role can involve both functions at varying times and

to varying degrees, and the same individual may well

exercise both functions in different contexts (Kotter,

2007). Nonetheless, there is an important difference

between the managerial function and the leader-

ship function; a difference that renders the ethical

responsibilities of the leadership function signifi-

cantly different from that of the managerial function.

The management function is one of implementa-

tion, and does not involve the visionary aspect

inherent in the leadership function.

Having outlined what I take to be the core ele-

ment of leadership itself, I would also stress here that

I will largely be concerned with the notion of busi-

ness leadership in this paper. This is important to bear

in mind since, as was noted earlier, the context of

leadership can determine the nature of the particular

Business Leadership 527

kind of leadership. Though all forms of leadership

will involve the core notion of leadership, there will

be differences in the particular forms that leadership

takes in different organizational or social contexts;

military leadership, educational, or political leader-

ship thus should not be expected to function exactly

the same as business leadership. In part, this is because

these domains involve different missions, and the

leadership function in business will be uniquely

guided by a business mission. Thus, we cannot

understand business leadership without understand-

ing the underlying goods of business, a point I will

return to later. I would also note here that we should

not confuse the motivation of particular leaders with

their leadership vision itself. The latter is an ideal for

which the efforts of both the leader and those who

follow him or her are to be directed. In this sense, it is

for the business itself that the business leader leads,

not merely for himself or herself, or for personal gain.

This is not to say that (s)he might be largely moti-

vated by personal gain to lead, as presumably most

people who enter the world of business do so at least

partly out of such motivation. But it is to say that

we should not confuse the personal motivation of

leaders, whatever they might be, with the aim of

their leadership, for the latter is clearly grounded

in something independent of their personal moti-

vations.

In a similar regard, we should also note that what

distinguishes leadership in business from leadership

in other domains such as education, politics, or the

military is not a distinction, as has sometimes been

implied, between the characteristics or motivations

of the leaders themselves, as, again, the personal

motivations for taking on leadership roles in any

domain can vary from person to person. Rather, the

difference between the leadership function in dif-

ferent areas depends upon what Aristotle would call

the telos, or purpose, of those realms of activity.

According to Aristotle, every activity has its own

end or purpose – the good or the reason for which

that activity is done (Aristotle, 1999). The telos of

an activity refers to this reason or good for which an

activity aims. The difference in the nature of lead-

ership in different fields will then depend in part

upon the nature of those fields themselves and the

kinds of ends that they seek to secure: that is, from

the differences of telos between different arenas of

activity.

Three levels of ethical analysis in leadership

studies

Having outlined the basic nature of the leadership

function in business, we can now turn to an exam-

ination of the ethics of leadership. As noted earlier,

while there has been a growing interest in ethical

issues involved in leadership, the conceptual foun-

dations for understanding these issues is still in need

of clarification. Here, I will show that there are

actually three different levels of analysis concerning

ethical issues in leadership, and that it is important to

recognize each distinctive area as well as the unique

issues that are raised in each. I will also argue that it is

at the third level of analysis that the most significant

questions concerning the ethics of leadership arise in

business, and that this level of analysis needs more

attention than it has so far garnered. Along the way, I

also hope to provide some further clarification on

the various ways in which efficiency and ethics are

related in good business leadership.

The first level of analysis: ethical leadership

as the ethics of leaders

One way of conceiving the ethical requirements of

leadership is to focus upon the ethical behavior of

leaders qua individuals. Indeed, when ethical com-

ponents of leadership were mentioned in most of the

business leadership literature in the past, it was pri-

marily in terms of this level of analysis. Leaders, it

was claimed, should exhibit a personal morality that

served as a model for the ethical behavior of those

under them. Not surprisingly, ethical accounts of

leadership that operate at this level of analysis tend to

result in encouragement for leaders to adopt ethically

sound behaviors, in both their personal and their

professional lives. However, too often they offered

little more than such encouragement. In this regard,

Ciulla argues that such accounts of the ethics of

leadership often treated ‘‘ethics as an exhortation

rather than an in-depth exploration of the subject’’

(2004, p. 305).

Of course, it is no doubt true that it would be

desirable to have leaders who generally exhibit

ethical behavior in their personal and professional

lives, and thus that the ethics of leadership should

include a general account of both morally right

528 Daniel E. Palmer

action and the moral virtues. As John Gardner puts it

in his book On Leadership, ‘‘we should hope that our

leaders will keep alive values that are not so easy to

embed in laws – our caring for others, about honor

and integrity, about tolerance and mutual respect,

and about human fulfillment within a framework

of values’’ (1990, p. 77, as cited in Ciulla, 2004,

p. 305). We all desire that those who would lead us

have a basic commitment to morality. As social

contract theorists have long argued, we are all gen-

erally better off to the extent the persons adopt the

basic principles of morality. Further, it is also prob-

ably true that since the leadership role brings both

greater responsibility for others and interaction with

a larger number of persons, the leaders will have

greater opportunity to exercise their personal moral

characteristics. Thus, we have even more reason for

desiring that leaders display a personal concern for

morality.

However, aside from a general interest in wanting

leaders to be ethical persons, there are two inter-

esting arguments that have recently been made for

seriously considering the personal moral character-

istics of leaders as essential to the nature of our

understanding of leadership. The first sort of argu-

ment, made by Norman Bowie, suggests that there is

a close connection between the personal moral lives

of business leaders and their moral behavior as

business leaders (2005, p. 144). Bowie, for instance,

uses examples of the Haft family, Martha Stewert,

Al Dunlap, Dennis Kozlowski, and others to suggest

that leaders who lack a commitment to ethical

behavior in their personal lives will also be prone to

unethical behavior in their leadership roles. While

Bowie admits that these anecdotal case studies need

to be supported by further empirical ‘hard data,’ he

nonetheless raises a suggestive point about why the

personal morality of leaders might be of significance

to an understanding of the goodness of their lead-

ership as well (2005, p. 158). If Bowie is correct, it

might be true that the distinction between the pri-

vate and the public realm may be more fluid than is

sometimes assumed.

A second consideration is artfully raised by Alejo

Sison in The Moral Capital of Leaders. Sison’s exam-

ination of numerous cases of organizational break-

down within the world of business illustrates the

close connection between corporate downfall and

leadership failure (2003). More importantly though,

Sison demonstrates that such leadership failure stems

in part from a moral failure of leadership. Here,

Sison develops the intriguing notion of moral capital

to describe the resources that human virtue repre-

sents within business enterprises. Sison argues that

moral capital can be seen as crucial to the long-term

success of businesses, and that ‘‘without moral cap-

ital, all other forms of capital could easily turn from

the source of a firm’s advantage to the cause of its

downfall’’ (2003, p. 42). With the notion of moral

capital, he demonstrates how personal virtue trans-

lates into business virtue, and thus is not merely a

personal matter.

Arguments such as Bowie’s and Sison’s go beyond

mere exhortations to ethical behavior on the part of

business leaders and provide a better understanding

of why the morality of leaders matters within busi-

ness enterprise.2 As important as the first level of

analysis may be though, I do not believe it can

provide an exhaustive account of the ethics of

leadership. For instance, though Bowie offers com-

pelling arguments for thinking that there is often a

contingent relationship between personal morality

and good leadership in some business contexts, I do

not believe that such a connection is necessary.

When we consider the vast ways and diverse con-

texts in which the leadership function can occur, it is

not clear why personal morality and good leadership

need always go hand in hand. Bowie even makes this

case in struggling to articulate the relationship

between Bill Clinton’s presidential leadership, which

Bowie himself admires greatly, and Clinton’s clearly

morally problematic personal life (2005, p. 151).

Further, and perhaps more importantly, even if

leadership fails because of the personal ethical failures

of leaders, it is not clear why this is uniquely an

ethical failure of leadership. That is to say, analyzing

the ethics of leadership at the first level may have lots

to tell us about how general ethical principles and

virtues are applicable to leaders no less than to

anyone else, but it does not necessarily show us what

ethical issues are unique to leadership as such.

A different concern with the first level of analysis

is that focusing upon the personal morality of leaders

may pose the danger of leading us to hold leaders

personally accountable to a higher standard of

morality than we do others. As Ciulla well notes,

we should realize that ‘‘leaders do not have to live

by higher moral standards then the rest of us’’

Business Leadership 529

(Ciulla et al., 2005, p. 1). Concentrating too much

attention on the personal morality of leaders may

cause us to expect too much of them, and indeed to

have expectations of our leaders that are unrealiz-

able. Leaders, no less than anyone else, are fallible

human beings who are prone to all of the same

moral mistakes and mishaps that we all make from

time to time, and though we should encourage

leaders to adopt standards of morally good behavior

and exhibit morally worthy characters, we should

not require moral perfection from them. Such a

standard is bound to be too high, and ironically

could even lead ethically minded persons to avoid

leadership roles precisely because they see the stan-

dard as impossible to meet. Finally, we should not

think that all ethical failures of leaders, even those

that they make while in leadership roles, are failures

of leadership. Again, Clinton’s ethical failures in his

personal life are not in any direct ways failures of his

political leadership, despite the attempts of some of

his political rivals to make them so. Similarly, some

of the very same character traits that make for virtues

of good business leaders, such as a wholehearted

dedication to work or a low tolerance for imper-

fection, can lead to vice in other areas of those

leaders’ lives, as when they neglect family relation-

ships or are too demanding of loved ones.

The second level of analysis – the means of ethical

leadership

While the first level of analysis concentrates upon

the ethics of leaders themselves, the second level of

analysis moves to a consideration of how leaders lead

– the means by which leaders exercise their leader-

ship. Leadership involves acting to move others to

act; it is an essentially affective role. This pragmatic

function of leadership has been the focus of a great

deal of the social scientific studies of leadership, and

the literature is ripe with studies concerning the

means by which leaders affect others. Various

schools of leadership such as the trait school or the

contingency school accented different aspects of

the leadership function and attempted to pinpoint

the precise qualities that determined effective lead-

ership (Shackleton, 1995). Contrasting qualities of

different leadership styles also were used to accent

different means of leadership, for instance in the

distinction between autocratic and participatory

models of leadership, or more recently in Bass’s

(1985) distinction between transactional and trans-

formational leadership. Of course, from the per-

spective of the social scientific paradigm, the major

objective is to determine which means of leadership

are most effective in moving others to act and, in

doing so, to also provide those in leadership posi-

tions within the world of business with the instru-

mental tools to bring about organizational change.

While the social scientific viewpoint on leader-

ship is primarily concerned with the efficiency of

various means of leadership, one can raise uniquely

ethical questions about how leaders lead as well.

Thus, at this second level of analysis, the focus is

upon the ethics of the means of leadership. Here, we

might profitably distinguish between two different

ways in which we might look at the means of

leadership. One way of doing so would be to focus

upon the specific actions that are taken in per-

forming the leadership function. That is, on a day in,

day out basis, those acting in leadership roles engage

in numerous individual actions to provide direction

for their businesses and to motivate those under

them to act. Each of these actions can be evaluated

in moral terms, and we might then view the ethical

analysis of the means of leadership of any particular

leader simply as the sum of the morality of all his or

her individual leadership acts. While there are times

in which we certainly do want to focus upon par-

ticular actions in this way, such an approach is un-

likely to provide a systematic account that would

ground a theory of leadership.

A second approach would be to view the means

of leadership in terms of styles or models of leader-

ship, as has been common in the social scientific

literature on leadership. The advantages of utilizing

this approach for ethical analysis are at least twofold.

First, it allows us to better understand the connec-

tions existing among the diverse actions that leaders

take. Rather than isolated events, such actions can be

viewed as fitting into patterns stemming from a root

disposition. Second, this approach will allow us to

better understand why leadership fails, since such

failures will not appear as isolated events, but as

connected to an underlying character of leadership.

In this way we might profitably conceive of the

relationship between a leader’s general approach to

leadership and the various individual actions she

530 Daniel E. Palmer

makes as a leader in terms of the distinction between

character and action. When exercising the leadership

function, leaders exhibit a certain character in their

approach to effecting leadership – an approach that

evinces their general disposition to dealing with

those under their leadership, which is typically dis-

played in how they interact with and seek to

motivate those persons. While there is no perfect

one–one correlation between leadership character

and individual actions (we all, at times, act, as it

were, ‘outside’ of our character), it is nonetheless

true that in general the individual actions of a leader

will reflect their underlying leadership character.

Ethical analysis of leadership at the second level

then should seek to show how different models of

leadership exhibit different characters of leadership

and, in turn, how ethical values are appropriate to

the appraisal of these characters. As noted previously,

numerous different models have been proposed for

studying contrasting leadership styles, and I do not

have the space here to survey the various typologies

or examine the extent to which they exhaust the

possible means of leadership. However, I would like

to pull together what I think are two important

aspects of the currently available work in leadership

studies in this area that are illuminative of our

understanding of the ethical analysis of leadership

models.

In the first place, a good deal of the current

research shows that there is, at least in many cases, a

contingent connection between effective leadership,

in the strategic sense, and ethical leadership in the

world of business (see, for example, Bandsuch et al.,

2008; Kouzes and Posner, 2003 and Surie and

Ashley, 2008). Of course, in the strategic sense,

effective leadership in business is simply leadership

that effectively contributes to the achievement of

business goals. While it is more difficult to arrive at a

consensus concerning what ethical means of lead-

ership involve, I would argue that at a minimum

ethical leadership involves respect for persons. In this

view, the means of ethical leadership will exhibit a

fundamental respect for those being motivated to

act. To treat people with respect in this sense entails

that we do not view them as mere means to our own

ends (Kant, 1964, p. 33). This Kantian-inspired

notion of respect for persons accentuates the idea

that persons are not mere things to be used solely for

the purposes of others and that respect for persons

entails recognition of their intrinsic worth as rational

beings (Kant, 1964, p.96). Applied to leadership

models, this view entails that modes of leadership

that fail to respect the personhood of those led are

unethical, and that such modes of leadership will

inevitably involve using persons as mere means. For

instance, deception, threats, coercion, and blackmail

are all unethical means of effecting leadership pre-

cisely because they fail to respect the personhood of

others. On the other hand, ethical means of moti-

vating persons to act will respect their intrinsic

worth as rational beings with their own interests and

values.

In this sense, we can say that the character of a

leader fundamentally reflects his or her attitude

toward those with whom (s)he interacts, and his or

her fundamental dispositions to act toward others. As

noted above, what is interesting about much of the

current research in leadership studies is that it sug-

gests that in the world of business ethical leadership

models tend to be more effective than unethical

models in the sense outlined above. Thus, for in-

stance, much of the current literature on leadership

styles stresses the importance of such qualities as

reciprocity, trust, and honesty in modeling effective

leadership (Kouzes and Posner, 2003). I would argue

that it is not surprising that ethical modes of lead-

ership tend to be more effective in the world of

business, precisely because the world of business is

predicated upon mutual interaction among free

agents. This is why, for instance, Robert Solomon

has argued that integrity and honesty are so impor-

tant in the world of business, as business itself is

ultimately a practice that occurs in a community of

individuals interacting together, and not as isolated

individuals (Solomon, 1992, p. 207)

A second important aspect to consider when

examining the means of leadership concerns the

emotional dimension of leadership. Again, Robert

Solomon has done more than anyone in recent years

to remind us of the role that emotions play in both

ethics and leadership (Solomon 2005). Leadership is

not merely a cognitive activity, and the leadership

function is rarely exercised through rational persua-

sion alone. Indeed, an essential part of the leadership

function consists in establishing an affective con-

nection, so that persons are strongly moved to act.

Emotions play a central role in our motivational

structure, and leadership cannot function effectively

Business Leadership 531

without emotional appeal. As we are all well aware

though, emotional appeals can be directed in ways

that are manipulative as well as genuine. In the

former, emotional responses are solicited in a fashion

that belies respect for a person’s real interests, while

in the latter they are solicited in order to appeal to

and strengthen a person’s sincere commitments.

Borrowing from existential philosophers such as

Sartre then, we might distinguish between authentic

and inauthentic forms of leadership (Sartre 1956).

While authentic leadership is based upon a real

connection of purpose between leaders and follow-

ers, inauthentic leadership is based upon artifice and

guile. Authentic leadership establishes emotional

connections and utilizes affective responses to move

others toward a shared good, while inauthentic

leadership manipulates emotional responses in order

to move others to act without concern for their own

ends. Clearly, inauthentic leadership fails to respect

persons, and in doing so adopts unethical means of

leadership. A number of recent studies in leadership

have also argued persuasively that inauthentic lead-

ership is likely to be ineffective as well as unethical in

the world of business (see, for example, George,

2003). Further, I would argue that the reason that

this is true is precisely because business activity

generally takes place within cooperative and trans-

parent frameworks of mutual interaction. Such cli-

mates are not conducive to inauthentic forms of

leadership, which generally are founded upon rela-

tionships that involve extreme dependency, rigidly

defined social or political roles, and gross imposition

of force. Further, inauthentic leadership relies upon a

certain level of emotional dysfunction, and thus

presupposes a context that is unlikely to be condu-

cive to successful business in any case. Indeed, I

believe that further empirical research into the

function of emotional health and emotional per-

ception in business relationships is an important area

of future inquiry in leadership studies.

Analysis of the means of leadership is a well-

established field of study, and in recent years, more

work on the ethical side of this area has also been

done (see, for example, Ciulla, et al., 2005). Above,

I have tried to show what I believe can most prof-

itably be learned from this work, and how we might

build upon it to best understand and further

encourage ethical modes of leadership. However, as

important as this level of analysis is, it still does not

provide a complete account of the ethics of leader-

ship. For one thing, those who have focused on this

level have tended to reduce ethics to mere strategy,

utilizing the old saw that good ethics is good busi-

ness. This, as I have suggested above, may well be

true, at least within certain parameters, but it is

misleading if it is meant to imply that the ethical

component is reducible to the strategic component.

Ethical leadership is not merely strategically sound

leadership. In a similar regard, even when the means

of leadership are ethical, that does not entail that the

leadership itself is ethical, for that depends on the

ends of leadership as well. Authenticity, while per-

haps a necessary condition of ethical leadership, is

not a sufficient condition. In order to get a complete

account of the ethics of leadership then we must

look beyond both the leader as a person and the

means of leadership, to the value of the leadership

itself. It is this level of analysis that I turn to next.

The third level of analysis – the heart of leadership

As important as it is to carry out the first two levels

of analysis, it is only with the third level of analysis

that we arrive at what I would call the heart of the

ethics of leadership. For it is not just the personal

ethics of leaders, or even of their means of leader-

ship, that determines the ethics of leadership.

Rather, leadership ethics must also be defined in

relation to the leadership offered itself. What I mean

by this is that leadership, as shown earlier, essentially

involves moving others to act in light of a common

vision, of framing means of achieving a unifying

telos that provides the direction toward which col-

lective action is guided. Again, leadership presup-

poses a common mission and offers a vision of how

best to achieve that mission. Tyranny is thus differ-

ent from leadership, even though tyrants and leaders

may at times make use of the same means of moti-

vating others, and may even display the same per-

sonal morality, because tyranny presupposes no

common telos. Tyrants impose a telos upon others,

while leaders move others to achieve a common

telos. The heart of leadership thus lies in the offering

of a vision in light of a common telos, and here too

the ethics of leadership completes itself. It is here that

the third level of analysis lies then, and it is also this

area that has been least explored in the literature on

532 Daniel E. Palmer

leadership. As such, I now wish to offer a framework

to illustrate how we might best conceptualize the

ethical issues that pertain to this level of analysis as

well as their significance for understanding the nat-

ure of business leadership.

I think it is easier to understand the ethics of

leadership at this level negatively, by looking first at

what ethically failed leadership involves. If leadership

essentially involves providing a vision of a common

good in order to motivate persons to act in light of a

common mission, then there are at least two ways in

which leadership can exhibit ethical failure at this

level. To see this we should note that leadership

appeals to two elements: a telos, which represents

the common good that is sought, and a vision, or

projection, of how that good will be achieved. The

telos represents what leadership aims at, and what I

will term the projection represents how the telos is

to be achieved. In the world of business, the com-

mon good, or general telos, to be achieved is the

good of the business itself, a good which both leaders

and followers participate in, but is not reducible to

any of their individual goods. This explains why

we are intuitively bothered by extremely lucrative

executive compensation packages that do not seem

to be matched by corresponding performance for the

corporation, for we recognize that the executive

leader is supposed to have the good of the corpo-

ration in mind, and not merely his or her own

personal good. The projection is likewise not

equivalent to a specific business plan or model,

though these things may of course fall out of it, but

rather refers to the most basic idealization by which

the completion of the telos is envisioned. As Kotter

points out in a similar vein, ‘‘setting a direction is

never the same as planning or even long-term

planning’’ (Kotter, 2007, p. 32). The projection

articulates a general notion of the strategies by which

the general mission of the business can best be

achieved.

One way in which leadership fails in business then

is when the projection offered by a leader is inher-

ently in conflict with the mission of the business. It is

important to note that not every failure of general

strategy is an ethical failure of this type, as every

business venture involves some risk. If the failure

is merely a failure of miscalculation, or the result

of other contingent factors that routinely prevent

success in business, then the failure of leadership may

be a strategic failure, but as long as the plan was

projected in good faith, it need not represent an

ethical failure. On the other hand, it is an ethical

failure if the failure results from an intrinsic discon-

nect between the telos and the projection that were

offered, in the sense that the leadership offered a

projection that leaders ought to have known was in

conflict with the very mission of the business they

were leading. For instance, when we look at the

leaders responsible for the downfall of Enron, there

are numerous ethical questions that can be raised

about the behavior of the executives involved. At

heart though, what is most significant about the

ethical failures of their leadership is that they pursued

and promoted a general business strategy that was

inherently in conflict with the good of the business

itself (Culpan and Trussel, 2005). There was simply

an intrinsic conflict between the vision they offered

to those who worked for or invested in the company

and the mission that they were allegedly promoting.

Likewise, ethical leadership can fail when it is

centered upon a mission that is inherently unsup-

portable. This kind of ethical failure is connected to

the very nature of the telos of business. Earlier I

noted that in business, the common telos around

which the leader motivates others is the success of

the business. But here we need to unpack the notion

of success more fully, for success can also have two

different connotations. In one sense, we can speak of

success in a purely pragmatic sense, in which success

indicates mere achievement of an end. However, in

another sense we can speak of success in the sense of

the achievement of a worthwhile end. Ultimately

though I would argue that success in business must

be understood in the second sense, since only this

provides a justification as to why business is worth

pursuing as a collective good. If the only sense of

success applicable to business was pragmatic, then

one could never explain why we endeavor to engage

in the ends of business in the first place. Our

acceptance of the pragmatic sense of success itself

depends upon our recognition of another sense of

success. Business then succeeds to the extent that it

meets its telos, or purpose, and not merely when it

meets particular strategic aims. What is the telos of

business activity in general? Why do we engage in

business at all? I think at least a partial answer to such

questions is that the telos of business can be found to

be the collective goods that business provides us with

Business Leadership 533

as an activity. To again borrow from Aristotle, we

must think of the telos of business in terms of the

manner in which business contributes to our

flourishing as human beings. More specifically then,

the world of business allows for human flourishing

by providing for the creation of goods and services,

efficiently distributing those goods and services

for the common good, and affording meaningful

opportunities for persons to exercise and develop

their talents. Business is, in this sense, an activity

inherently subject to normative evaluation, since

we must judge its worth by what it allows us to

achieve.

There is then an inherent normative criterion that

can be used to judge the success of businesses and the

ethical nature of leadership in turn. For the mission

of a business itself grounds the leadership that it of-

fered. Ethical failures of leadership then also occur in

business whenever leadership is founded upon a

flawed telos or mission. Taking the simplest exam-

ple, we can see here what is intrinsically, and not just

strategically, wrong with pyramid or Ponzi schemes

as forms of business. As Daryl Koehn (2001) argues,

such business schemes lack any substantial value

precisely because they produce no tangible good and

are inherently unsustainable (pp. 153–154). Even

when those who instigate them are able to profit

from them, we are loath to call them successful as

businesses, for we recognize that whatever the per-

sons succeeded at, it was not, in the full sense of the

word, a business success. Such ‘businesses’ by their

very nature could not be successful in the full sense,

since they contain no real purpose or point other

than profiting the individuals who instigated them.

Their telos is limited to the narrow aims of their

initiators, we dare not call them leaders, and they

soon wither away when those aims are fulfilled.

They contribute nothing to human flourishing and

by their very nature are doomed to collapse upon

their own empty promises. Ethical leadership leads

for a purpose, and the purpose is ultimately what will

determine the worth of the leadership. Good leaders,

in both the ethical and the efficient sense, recognize

that the ends toward which they move others are not

merely their own personal ends, but are ends that

reach beyond themselves to all who are engaged in

the collective enterprise itself. Good leadership must

be understood in terms of the underlying goods to

which it is directed.

Finally, in this way, I think we can better

understand why we should think, as Norman Bowie

suggests in a somewhat different way, that there is a

close connection between good leadership and sus-

tainable business (Bowie, 2005, p. 144). Successful

business is business that contributes to human

flourishing, and unsustainable business models will,

in the end, be unable to make such a contribution.

Whether by threatening the very environment that

renders our continued existence possible or by fur-

thering the oppression of the most vulnerable in

society, unsustainable business models frustrate the

very ends for which business exists. On the other

hand, sustainable business is business that properly

lives up to the very promise of business itself. Sus-

tainable business is business that recognizes that

business has a purpose outside of business itself, and

which develops business in light of that purpose.

Good leaders recognize the purpose in business, and

in that light seek to establish models of business that

sustain this purpose as well.

Conclusion

In analyzing the three levels of the ethics of leader-

ship, I have shown the different ways in which

ethical issues arise in regards to leadership. A com-

plete account of the ethics of leadership will neces-

sarily encompass all three levels. Research on the

normative aspect of leadership is still a relatively new

enterprise within the mainstream of leadership

studies, and in clarifying the different levels of

analysis and the different kinds of questions that arise

at each level, I hope to have provided a model for

better integrating ethical issues into the study of

leadership. Leadership is what drives innovation,

expansion, and achievement within the world of

business. In a globalized environment in which

rapidly changing technology and innovative orga-

nizational paradigms are transforming the very

landscape of business, the leadership function is more

important than ever. Put simply, good leadership

will be in demand more than ever. Good leadership

though is more than strategically successful leader-

ship, and the goal of future leadership studies should

be to more fully integrate ethical analysis into our

understanding of good leadership. In offering a

model that clarifies the various ways in which ethical

534 Daniel E. Palmer

issues are pertinent to leadership, I hope to have

provided some of the groundwork for this endeavor.

Notes

1 A reviewer of an earlier version of this paper cor-

rectly pointed out that there is a distinction between

the notions of mission and vision. The mission concerns

the foundational purpose of an enterprise, and thus is

something that is common to the participation of all of

those who participate in the business. The mission of an

enterprise is the common bedrock upon which all those

who participate in the enterprise, whether leaders, man-

agers, or lower level employees, organize their activities.

A vision, on the other hand, refers to a particular view

as to how best to fulfill the corporate mission. In my

view, leaders have the obligation both to focus others

on the common mission and to provide a vision to

inspire others to action to best achieve that mission. In

the section discussing the third level of analysis, I make

use of these two concepts again, and hopefully clarify

further the nature of the distinction. 2 It is important to note that I do not mean to imply

that the work on ethical leadership done by scholars

such as Bowie and Sison only deal with what I am call-

ing the first level of analysis. Indeed, as I later point

out, Bowie’s work on ethical leadership contributes sig-

nificantly to our understanding of the third level of

analysis. In a similar vein, Sison’s work on ethical lead-

ership clearly encompasses important elements of all

three levels of analysis as well. My point in using these

examples is only to show how central elements of the

work of certain authors on ethical leadership well illus-

trate a particular level of analysis of ethical leadership,

and should not be taken to imply that their work, as a

whole, is limited to those levels of analysis. My use of

such examples is thus merely meant to help clarify the

different levels of analysis, not to pigeonhole the work

of previous scholars on ethical leadership discussed in

this paper.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the participants of the 15th Inter-

national Symposium on Ethics, Business, and Society at

the IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Bar-

celona, Spain, for a number of comments and sugges-

tions that were helpful in preparing the final draft. I

would also like to thank Professor Alejo Sison of the

University of Navarra, who read a complete draft ver-

sion of the paper, as well as two anonymous reviewers

of a manuscript draft, for their insightful comments and

criticisms. Responding to their concerns has helped me

to clarify my own thoughts on several of the ideas dis-

cussed in the paper and, hopefully, improved my pre-

sentation of them in a number of respects.

References

Antonakis, J., A. Cianciolo and R. Sternberg: 2004,

‘Leadership: Past, Present, and Future’, in J. Antonakis,

A. Cianciolo and R. Sternberg (eds.), The Nature of

Leadership (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 3–15.

Aristotle: 1999, Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. by T. Irwin

(Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN).

Bandsuch, M., L. Pate and J. Thies: 2008, ‘Rebuilding

Stakeholder Trust in Business: An Examination of

Principle-Centered Leadership and Organizational

Transparency incorporate Governance’, Business and

Society Review 113(1), 99–127.

Bass, B.: 1985, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expec-

tations (Free Press, New York, NY).

Bass, B.: 2007, ‘Concepts of Leadership’, in R. Vecchio

(ed.), Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power

and Influence in Organizations, 2nd Edition (University

of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN), pp. 3–22.

Bowie, N.: 2005, ‘Expanding the Horizons of Leader-

ship’, in J. Ciulla, T. Price and S. Murphy (eds.), The

Quest for Moral Leaders: Essays on Leadership Ethics

(Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA), pp. 144–160.

Ciulla, J.: 2002, ‘Trust and the Future of Leadership’, in

N. Bowie (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics

(Blackwell, Malden, MA), pp. 334–351.

Ciulla, J.: 2003, ‘Forward’ to A. Sison, The Moral Capital

of Leaders: Why Virtue Matters (Edward Elgar, North-

ampton, MA), pp. vi–vii.

Ciulla, J.: 2004, ‘Ethics and Leadership Effectiveness’, in

J. Antonakis, A. Cianciolo and R. Sternberg (eds.),

The Nature of Leadership (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA),

pp. 302–327.

Ciulla, J., T. Price and S. Murphy: 2005, The Quest for

Moral Leaders: Essays on Leadership Ethics (Edward

Elgar, Northampton, MA).

Conger, J.: 2005, ‘‘‘Oh Lord, Won’t You Buy Me a

Mercedes-Benz’’; How Compensation Practices are

Undermining the Credibility of Executive Leaders’, in

J. Ciulla, T. Price and S. Murphy (eds.), The Quest for

Moral Leaders: Essays on Leadership Ethics (Edward

Elgar, Northampton, MA), pp. 80–98.

Business Leadership 535

Culpan, R. and J. Trussel: 2005, ‘Applying the Agency

and Stakeholder Theories to the Enron Debacle: An

Ethical Perspective’, Journal of Business Ethics 110(1),

59–76.

Gardner, J.: 1990, On Leadership (Free Press, New York,

NY).

George, B.: 2003, Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the

Secrets to Creating Lasting Value (Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco, CA).

Greenleaf, R.: 2003, ‘The Servant as Leader’, in

R. Brandt and T. Kastl (eds.), Business Leadership: A

Jossey-Bass Reader (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA), pp.

117–136.

Kant, I.: 1964, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

Trans. by H. Paton (Harper Torchbooks, New York,

NY).

Koehn, D.: 2001, ‘Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-

Level Marketing Schemes’, Journal of Business Ethics

29(1/2), 153–160.

Kotter, J.: 2007, ‘What Leaders Really Do’, in R.

Vecchio (ed.), Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of

Power and Influence in Organizations, 2nd Edition

(University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN),

pp. 23–32.

Kouzes, J. and B. Posner: 2003, ‘Leadership is a Rela-

tionship’, in R. Brandt and T. Kastl (eds.), Business

Leadership: A Jossey-Bass Reader (Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco, CA), pp. 251–267.

Rost, J.: 1991, Leadership for the Twenty-First Century

(Praeger, New York, NY).

Sartre, J.: 1956, Being and Nothingness. Trans. by

H. Barnes (Philosophical Library, New York, NY).

Shackleton, V.: 1995, Business Leadership (Routledge,

New York, NY).

Sison, A.: 2003, The Moral Capital of Leaders: Why Virtue

Matters (Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA).

Solomon, R.: 1992, Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and

Integrity in Business (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

Solomon, R.: 2005, ‘Emotional Leadership, Emotional

Integrity’, in J. Ciulla, T. Price and S. Murphy (eds.),

The Quest for Moral Leaders: Essays on Leadership Ethics

(Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA), pp. 28–44.

Surie, G. and A. Ashley: 2008, ‘Integrating Pragmatism

and Ethics in Entrepreneurial Leadership for Sustain-

able Value Creation’, Journal of Business Ethics 81(1),

235–246.

Weber, J.: 1997, ‘Leadership’, in P. Werhane.

R. Freeman (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary

of Business Ethics (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA), pp.

363–366.

Department of Philosophy,

Kent State University,

Trumbull Campus, Warren, OH 44483-1998,

U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]

536 Daniel E. Palmer

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.

Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com