developing leadership character in business … leadership character in business programs mary...

Developing LeadershipCharacter in

Business ProgramsMARY CROSSAN

Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

DAINA MAZUTISIMD, Lausanne, Switzerland

GERARD SEIJTSJEFFREY GANDZ

Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

Our objective is to encourage and enable leadership character development in businesseducation. Building on a model of character strengths and their link to virtues, values,and ethical decision making, we describe an approach to develop leadership character atthe individual, group, and organizational levels. We contrast this approach to existingpractices that have focused on teaching functional content over character and addresshow business educators can enable leadership character development through their ownbehaviors, relationships, and structures. Most important, we provide concrete suggestionson how to integrate a focus on character development into existing business programs,both in terms of individual courses as well as the overall curriculum. We highlight thatthe development of leadership character must extend beyond student engagement in acourse since “it takes a village” to develop character.

........................................................................................................................................................................

Corporate scandals that recount greed and ram-pant materialism have led to an increased distrust,if not disdain, for business leaders. The crisis ofconfidence in leadership has manifested itself notonly in business, but also in public administra-tions, the sports arena, cultural organizations, andreligious institutions. In all of this, the role of char-acter resurfaces time and again as a contributingculprit in the apparent decline of ethical leader-ship, particularly in the business sphere. Moretroubling is that the responsibility for this morassis increasingly being assigned to the businessschools’ pumping out a staggering number of so-

called leaders, to populate not only corporateAmerica, but also multinationals worldwide. At theheight of the financial crisis, the Economist voicedthis scathing sentiment:

Most of the people at the heart of the crisis—from Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers to JohnThain at Merrill Lynch to Andy Hornby atHBOS—had MBAs after their name . . . Inrecent years about 40% of the graduates ofAmerica’s best business schools ended up onWall Street, where they assiduously appliedthe techniques that they had spent a smallfortune learning. You cannot both claim thatyour mission is “to educate leaders who makea difference in the world”. . . and then washyour hands of your alumni when the differ-ence they make is malign (Economist, Sep-tember 24, 2009: on-line edition).

We gratefully acknowledge the feedback and insights providedby Associate Editor Carolyn Egri and three anonymous review-ers. We also acknowledge the insight and encouragement fromthe participants in our “Leadership on Trial” discussion groupswho have inspired our work, and the financial support of thePierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

� Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2013, Vol. 12, No. 2, 285–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0024A

........................................................................................................................................................................

285Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’sexpress written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

The recent financial crisis has provided anotheropportunity for business schools to re-evaluatetheir role in teaching leadership and in developingleaders. Many schools have responded, producingconferences, summits, opinion pieces, and bookseither justifying their ways or proposing a newway forward. These incremental and radicalchanges to the curriculum point to the same fun-damental question: How are we changing the waywe educate leaders today to ensure that they makea more positive difference in the world tomorrow?

We seek to present the case for refocusing oncharacter development in business education as anecessary counterpoint to more functional per-spectives that focus primarily on teaching leader-ship skills and competencies. To do this, we decon-struct what we mean by character and review howthis concept has traditionally been dealt with inleadership research and teaching, in particularhighlighting the neglect of a virtue-based ethicsorientation. We provide concrete suggestions onhow to integrate a focus on character developmentinto existing business programs, both in terms ofcurriculum development and classroom tech-niques. Our aim is to inspire educators to embracea role beyond that of mere purveyors of manage-ment knowledge, toward one of catalyst for virtu-ous leadership development.

WHY CHARACTER?

Our commitment to understanding and developingleadership character arose from a project we hadundertaken to investigate the role of leadershipand business education in the current financialcrisis. As part of this project, we held a series ofroundtable discussions with over 300 senior lead-ers, human resource and organizational develop-ment specialists between September 2009 and May2010 in Canada, China, England and the UnitedStates. The content of the conversations was wideranging. One theme that executives raised anddiscussed extensively was character.

In presenting the voice of the practitioner in thisessay, we do not intend to suggest that today’sbusiness leaders have the right answers to press-ing business problems, but rather to reveal thatthey are thinking about character, have troubleunderstanding what it is, and are looking to busi-ness schools to help them figure it out. For exam-ple, while character was raised frequently in ourdiscussions, there was no consistent understand-ing about what it meant, despite a concurrence

that it was important. The following are two exam-ples of quotes taken from our conversations illus-trating the importance that today’s business lead-ers’ place on the role of values and character:

• It appears to me that, you know, without sort ofcondemning society as a whole, we seem tolack a moral compass to sort of make the rightdecision when the reward system is suggest-ing that we should trade the future for the pres-ent. I think as a leadership group we lack themoral vigor to make the intelligent tradeoffs . . .And, so, I just think as a society we’re becom-ing increasingly agnostic about what we be-lieve in and what we stand for.

• If you have a sense of what your values are, itbecomes a little bit easier for you to figure outwhat is right or wrong. It becomes a little biteasier for you to be courageous and say, “Idon’t like it” or “I can live with it” or “Here ishow I am going to deal with it,” but it all comesfrom a sense of knowing what’s important toyou firstly.

In almost every discussion the question—“cancharacter be taught?” came up. The executives wetalked to expressed strong views about this andthe challenge the development of character wouldpresent to business programs. This practical busi-ness concern motivated us to take a deeper look atcharacter and how we could develop it within abusiness school context.

DECONSTRUCTING CHARACTER

Peterson and Seligman (2004) have done some veryheavy lifting in their 800-page book devoted to theclassification and description of virtues and char-acter strengths, and we adopt their definitionshere. While future research may debate their con-clusions, they provide a sound starting point forour approach. Having identified six universal vir-tues that are common across a broad sample ofcultures, religions, and moral philosophers—wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance,and transcendence—character strengths are thenthe chosen or voluntary processes or mechanismsby which these virtues are expressed (Peterson &Seligman, 2004). The definitions of the six virtuesand their associated character strengths are asfollows:

Wisdom—Cognitive strengths that entail theacquisition and use of knowledge (creativity,curiosity, judgment, love of learning,perspective)

286 JuneAcademy of Management Learning & Education

Courage—Emotional strengths that involvethe exercise of will to accomplish goals in theface of opposition, external or internal (brav-ery, perseverance, honesty, zest)

Humanity—Interpersonal strengths that in-volve tending and befriending others (love,kindness, social intelligence)

Justice—Civic strengths that underliehealthy community life (teamwork, fairness,leadership)

Temperance—strengths that protectagainst excess (forgiveness, humility, pru-dence, self-regulation)

Transcendence—Strengths that forge con-nections to the larger universe and providemeaning (appreciation of beauty and excel-lence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality)

Virtues represent somewhat abstract exemplarsof good character, and character strengths are themeasurable group of related traits that reflect theuniversal virtues (Sosik & Cameron, 2010). If a per-son possesses a particular virtue, then the impli-cation is that individuals can explain a particularbehavior with reference to that person’s characterstrengths and predict what that person will dounder particular circumstances based on past be-haviors (Alzola, 2012; McKinnon, 1999).

An individual’s character consists of both habit-ual qualities or character strengths and a second,more motivational component (Audi, 2012; Wright& Goodstein, 2007). Here we introduce values asmotivational drivers that may lead or constrain anindividual to desire a particular end goal(Schwartz, 1996). For example, Rokeach (1973:5) de-fined values as “enduring beliefs that a specificmode of conduct or end-state of existence is per-sonally or socially preferable to an opposite orconverse mode of conduct or end-state.” As such,values can be prioritized so that one may favor aparticular course of action over another—for exam-ple, conformity values such as self-discipline (e.g.,self-restraint and resistance to temptation) canserve as a guiding principle in one’s life over stim-ulation (e.g., excitement and novelty) values(Schwartz, 1996). Values are therefore the core fromwhich we operate and hence they help cultivateparticular character strengths. The behaviors as-sociated with character strengths, in turn, forge theevolution of the values that people hold.

Personality traits lie somewhere in between ha-bitual character strengths (or weaknesses) and mo-tivational values in that these are not universally

admired qualities, nor do they necessarily moti-vate the pursuit of personal or societal good, or ofhuman flourishing (Alzola, 2012). Personality traitsare endogenous basic tendencies that give rise todistinct patterns of thought, feelings, and actions(McCrae & Costa, 2008). Personality traits such asthe Big Five are relevant to the discussion of char-acter in that some traits (e.g., openness to experi-ence) reflect certain values (e.g., stimulation andself-direction values) that can motivate behavioraldispositions (e.g., curiosity, love of learning) thatare expressions of virtues such as wisdom. Thedifficulty with personality traits is that these areoften assumed to be relatively fixed individualfeatures defined by genetics or evolutionary selec-tion process (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009; Mc-Crae et al., 2000) as opposed to values and charac-ter strengths that can be developed through lifeevents and experiences (Sosik & Cameron, 2010).

The above deconstruction of character is fromthe relatively recent academic domains of psychol-ogy and the social sciences. Philosophers, on theother hand, have debated the role of virtue andcharacter in pursuit of the good life for millennia,with early work rooted in Plato and Aristotle andmore recent revivals attributable to Anscombe(1958); MacIntyre (1981); Solomon (1992); Kupperman(1995); and Hursthouse (1999), among others. How-ever, it has been well established that we can onlyunderstand virtues by bridging philosophy andpsychology (Anscombe, 1958), and thus, we need away to integrate the broad literature on virtues,character strengths, values, and personality traitsacross these academic fields. To this end, we in-troduce a virtue-based orientation (VBO) modelthat places character development at the core ofethical decision making (EDM) in business (Cros-san, Mazutis, & Seijts, 2013; see Figure 1). The VBOmodel is a conceptualization that enables us toorganize these core elements. It is not our intent tosuggest that this conceptualization is the only wayto do so. Indeed, there are other conceptualizationssuch as Treviño’s (1986) interactionist model thatdemonstrates the effect of the interaction of indi-vidual differences and situational pressures onethical decisions. However, the interactionistmodel does not focus specifically on virtues, char-acter strengths, and values and so the utility of theVBO model is as an organizing framework for theconcepts we discuss.

Building on Rest’s (1986) four-stage process ofawareness, judgment, intent, and behavior, ourVBO model adds the critical component of reflec-

2013 287Crossan, Mazutis, Seijts, and Gandz

tion as a mediator in a re-conceptualized circularmodel of EDM that highlights the important role ofcontinuous learning in character development.This circularity suggests that individuals have thecapacity to deepen character strengths around thevirtuous mean as they avoid vices of deficiency orexcess. By virtuous mean, we propose a set of char-acter strengths that are a reflection of individualbehavioral dispositions associated with the uni-versal virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and it isthese character strengths that can be deepenedthrough reflection and reason (Alzola, 2012; McKin-non, 1999; Sadler-Smith, 2012) as detailed in Table1. For example, individuals can develop the char-acter strength of bravery, associated with the vir-tue of courage, but a VBO suggests that it is onlythrough this cycle of experience and reflection thatindividuals can do so while also avoiding the viceof recklessness (that represents the excess of brav-ery) or the vice of cowardice (that indicates a defi-

ciency in bravery). It is in this capacity for reflec-tion, which can be done individually, but ofteninvolves dialogue/dialectic and engagement withothers (Aristotle, 1999; Schon, 1987), that individu-als develop a VBO to EDM. This VBO to EDM, inturn, can serve as a buffer to situational pressuresthat may negatively influence one’s natural ten-dencies or dispositions to act in accordance toone’s virtuous character strengths. Both situationalpressures and components of an individual’s char-acter will, therefore, determine how the EDM pro-cess is engaged.

The VBO model of EDM is meant as an inten-tional counterpoint and corollary to more conse-quentialist perspectives that focus on weighingthe costs and benefits associated with the strategicchoices for the various stakeholders, most oftenprioritizing shareholders in this ethical calculus(Whetstone, 2001). By contrast, a VBO focuses notonly on the outcomes of ethical decisions as learn-

FIGURE 1A Virtue Based Model (VBO) of Ethical Decision Making (EDM)


ing opportunities for future ethical decisions, butalso on developing the character strengths of theindividual making decisions (de Colle & Werhane,2008). This is not meant to imply that situationalpressures do not have an important effect on EDMprocesses, but rather that, all other things beingequal, a stronger VBO, or capacity to deepen char-acter strengths, can serve as a buffer against thesesituational pressures and thus lead to betterdecisions.

Also important to note is that we see this modelapplying to decision making more generally sincemany stimuli are often not presented as eitherethical or nonethical decisions (Provis, 2010).Rather, individuals engage in a social process ofsense-making, and it is often in hindsight that werecognize that our conversations or actions resultin decisions that have ethical dimensions (Sonen-shein, 2007). Thus, if developing characterstrengths such as open mindedness, compassion,and humility through reflection can strengthen notonly ethical decision making but also decisionmaking in general, the question then becomes“can character be taught?” We turn to this questionnext, taking into account both a broad historicalperspective, as well as the insights heard frompractitioners described in the previous section.

Can Character Be Taught?

In response to our discussions about character, oneexecutive commented:

The issue, based on my observations, is thecharacter of MBA students, is already deeplyformed before [entering the business school]and then burnished by [the business school].The MBA students are driven—that’s howthey earned the qualifications for acceptance.They are driven further by a hyper intenseenvironment. When they graduate, they con-tinue to be driven. Driven people are unlikelyto be reflective and morally aware, perhapsuntil a life altering event occurs. I would alsoadd that I saw clear lies and pandering dur-ing MBA class discussions about ethics: peo-ple said what would get them the marks. So. . . I am less hopeful about MBA students andtheir moral awakening.

This sentiment is not unusual and is illustrativeof the challenges inherent when broaching thetopic of character development in businessschools. Yet, the debate about whether charactercan be taught is not a new one and is, in fact, as

TABLE 1Deepening Character Strengths Within the Virtuous Mean vs. Deficiency/Excess

Virtue Deficiency Virtuous mean Excess

Wisdom UnoriginalityClosed to experienceClosed mindedApathy

CreativityCuriosityOpen mindednessLove of learning

ImpracticalityUnfocused interestLack of judgmentObsessive

Courage CowardiceLazinessInauthenticity

BraveryPersistenceIntegrity

RecklessnessZealotRighteousness

Humanity Harsh/CruelUnfeelingStinginessSocially awkward

KindnessCompassionGenerositySocial intelligence

ObsequiousIndulgentProfligacyManipulative

Justice TreacheryUnjustLack of confidence

CitizenshipFairnessLeadership

Blind obedienceUndiscerningDictatorship

Temperance UnmercifulBoastfulnessRashSloth

ForgivenessHumilityPrudenceSelf-regulation

PushoverSelf-deprecationOverly cautiousInflexible

Transcendence UngratefulHopelessSpiritlessness

GratitudeHopeSpirituality

Suppliant behaviorFoolishnessFundamentalism

Note. Adapted from Aristotle (1999) and Peterson and Seligman (2004).


old as philosophical thought itself. While a fullexposition of the philosophical arguments as towhether character can be taught is beyond ourscope, the next section briefly describes both theyes and no sides of this question.

The Yes Side

For many of the ancient Greeks, including Platoand Aristotle, it was not so much that charactercould be taught, but rather, that character is some-thing that is habituated—that is, acquired throughthe consistent application of the virtues over thecourse of one’s lifetime (Aristotle, 1999; Arjoon,2000). Thus, similar to learning any other new skill,it is only through practicing virtuous acts that wedevelop character.

Furthermore, Aristotle saw character as some-thing that is not formed on one’s own, but ratherthat requires relationships and community—it isonly through sharing our interests and goals withothers that the bonds of kinship allow us to de-velop social virtues such as temperance, generos-ity, and friendliness (Horvath, 1995; Solomon, 1992).Individuals similarly learn what is right and goodby observing good people doing the right thingand then aspiring to become of similar character(Hill & Stewart, 1999). One could therefore say thatnot only is character something that can belearned, but also it is the responsibility of socialinstitutions—including educational institutions—to teach character by providing an environmentthat fosters virtuous behavior and where virtuousbehaviors can be observed and discovered (Sadler-Smith, 2012).

Deliberate teaching interventions such as role-plays, collaborative learning techniques, service-learning opportunities, and self-reflection exer-cises in the classroom appear to affect characterdevelopment through increased moral awarenessand moral reasoning (Comer & Vega, 2008; Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010; Schmidt, McAd-ams, & Foster, 2009). However, there is also evi-dence that elements of character can be learnedthrough direct experience of the environmentalone. For example, Krishnan (2008) found that af-ter 2 years of MBA education, students showed anincrease in the importance of self-oriented values,such as living a comfortable life and pleasurewhile other-oriented values, such as being helpfuland polite became less important. Wang, Malho-tra, and Murnighan (2011) demonstrated that in-creased exposure to economics courses was posi-

tively related to attitudes toward greed andattitudes toward one’s own greedy behavior. In areview of studies in this area, Ferraro, Pfeffer, andSutton (2005: 14) concluded that “one effect of eco-nomics training is to strengthen beliefs in the per-vasiveness, appropriateness, and desirability ofself-interested behaviour, which, in turn, shouldlead to exhibiting more self-interested behaviour.”Therefore, regardless of the intentionality of thedevelopment of character in business education, itnonetheless appears to be happening, with bothdesirable and perhaps undesirable results(Ghoshal, 2005).

The No Side

Although evidence seems to suggest that charactercan be taught, learned, and habituated, critics ar-gue that even if this is true, the practical implica-tions are limited (Doris, 2002; Harman, 2003). This isbecause even good people are willing to commitbad acts under particular circumstances, and onesimply cannot change people’s core dispositions(e.g., you cannot make a narcissistic person hum-ble). We present and rebut each criticism in turn.

The first criticism focuses on observations thatcharacter strengths cannot be understood as sta-ble and consistent, but rather that they will bend tothe particular demands of the situation (Zimbardo,2008). The extreme of this argument is that charac-ter does not even exist since situational determi-nants override it (Doris, 2002; Harman, 2003). Forexample, despite being caring, kind, and compas-sionate, individuals still administered what theyconsidered to be excruciating electrical shocks toinnocent participants if so instructed by a personof authority (e.g., Milgram’s obedience studies) orfailed to help someone in need if they were per-sonally late for another appointment (e.g., Darleyand Batson’s Good Samaritan lecture andintervention).

Situationalists thus suggest that teaching char-acter is futile as it cannot explain why even virtu-ous people might behave in an uncharacteristi-cally unvirtuous manner and that strong characteralone cannot prevent unethical behavior (Doris,2002). However, recent research has demonstratedthat the situationalist argument rests on empiricalevidence that is largely misconstrued. For exam-ple, Alzola (2008) argued that replication studies ofboth the Obedience to Authority and Good Samar-itan experiments have resulted in widely diver-gent findings. Also important is that many of these


studies rely on “extreme situations far removedfrom everyday life” (Alzola, 2008: 349) and one-shotmeasurements, which by definition cannot capturea person’s habitual qualities and motivationaldrivers over time—conditions that would be nec-essary in the attribution of character. Furthermore,because virtue requires a lifelong effort, includingreflecting on ethical decisions that may have gonewrong, cross-sectional studies of particular inter-ventions cannot adequately capture virtue as man-ifest by learning from mistakes (Kupperman, 2001).Finally, although highly disputed, Alzola (2008)claims that situational effects account for only asmall portion of the variance in behavior.

The second criticism of teaching character inbusiness education centers on the belief that noteveryone is equally teachable. In spite of the prom-ise Hartman (2006: 69) holds for teaching characterin a business school context, even he con-ceded that:

No ethics course will much affect a studentwho, after careful consideration, believes thatthe one who dies with the most toys wins inthe zero sum game that is business and thats/he wants to be such a person. Nor can we doa great deal for people incapable of develop-ing any skill in dealing with complex situa-tions, or those incapable of doing anythingother than what nearly everyone elseis doing.

Yet, there is no empirical evidence to supportthis “unteachable” hypothesis. If we believe thatour students are largely incapable of developingthe skills to deal with complex situations, wewould also stop teaching strategy, finance, opera-tions management, and marketing. Arguably, un-dergraduate and MBA students may be in a veryimpressionable phase of their learning develop-ment, while executives may find themselves skep-tical, jaded, and cynical. Both extremes presentopportunities inasmuch as individuals have ameasure of indirect control over their wants andbeliefs, they also have indirect control over thedevelopment of character strengths and mitigationof character weaknesses (Audi, 2012).

In this section, we presented support for the im-portance of leadership character and argued that itcan be influenced, in a business school context.We now turn our focus to how character develop-ment occurs in business school settings, using alevels-of-analysis perspective to illustrate areas

where a more deliberate approach to characterdevelopment may be beneficial.

LEADERSHIP CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT ANDBUSINESS PROGRAMS

We present our arguments regarding characterbuilding as these relate to leadership developmentin business programs. However, our view of lead-ership is not focused on power or position, butrather on the capacity of individuals to bring thebest of themselves to support and enable others,ensure the organizations they work with achieve atthe highest level, and in doing so, contribute tosociety. Although our view of leadership is notbound by position, we acknowledge that the can-vas on which individuals exercise leadership be-comes larger as they rise in the organizationhierarchy.

Crossan, Vera, and Nanjad (2008) provide a use-ful framework with which to gauge an individual’sability to master essential leadership processes atvarious levels: self, others, and the organization.Leadership of self refers specifically to developingpositive character strengths such as humility andopen-mindedness, as well as the capability of self-awareness as a mechanism for continual learning.Leadership of others speaks to the responsibility ofpositive interpersonal relationships that leadersmust cultivate with followers and peers in order tolead effectively, while leadership of the organiza-tion refers to a leader’s critical role of aligning thenonhuman parts of the organization—strategy,structure, systems, and environment—to delivercompetitive advantage. Leadership at all threelevels is required to ensure sustained firm perfor-mance (Crossan et al., 2008).

We see character playing out at all three levels,both in what we do with our students at the courselevel, and also for ourselves, as educators, in thecontext of our own organizations. We also need toconsider the teaching of character in the context ofthe portfolio of courses taught at business schools

If we believe that our students arelargely incapable of developing the skillsto deal with complex situations, wewould also stop teaching strategy,finance, operations management, andmarketing.


in addition to teaching character in a course orcourses exclusively dedicated to doing so. Al-though these points are interrelated, we unpackthem by examining several salient elements: in-fusing character development in all courses taughtin business schools, character development indedicated courses, and implications for facultyand business school culture and capability.

Infusing Character Development in All Courses

Leaders need character, competencies, and com-mitment to do the challenging and rewarding workof leadership (Gandz, Crossan, Seijts, & Stephen-son, 2010; Thompson, Grahek, Phillips, & Fay, 2008).We believe that most business schools have fo-cused time, energy, and resources in only on one ofthese three leadership domains—developing lead-ership competencies. Much of what we do in theclassroom, for example, focuses on imparting coreknowledge, largely in a functional paradigm: fi-nance, marketing, operations management, ac-counting, organizational behavior, strategy, and soforth. Furthermore, many schools have acknowl-edged that it is not only “what” we teach but “how”we teach it that develops important competenciessuch as teamwork and communication. Regardlessof whether we teach accounting, finance, or orga-nizational behavior, we also have the opportunityto develop a student’s character.

For example, there are times where characterdevelopment may be in the backdrop of the sessioncontent and other times where it may be the es-sence of the discussion. An accounting coursecould include a role-playing module where stu-dents practice voicing their discomfort with ambig-uous auditing practices to help develop characterstrengths of honesty and integrity (Gentile, 2010;Melé, 2005). A marketing course could add aservice-learning exercise, such as developing amarketing plan for a local charitable organizationto hone students’ course content skills while simul-taneously developing character strengths of gen-erosity and benevolence (Hartman & Beck-Dudley,

1999). A strategy course could incorporate reactionpapers to heated case debates intended to in-crease character strengths of perspective and self-regulation (e.g., The Function of the Firm; andwhether the focus should be on creating share-holder value or stakeholder value) where studentsreflect on how their personal values, beliefs, orattitudes affected the way they approached theethical issues surfaced in the classroomdiscussion.

The challenge, however, is that character devel-opment occurs at a very personal level; it is notsomething that one simply “knows” or acquiresfrom reading about it. Rather, character strengthssuch as courage or humility can be learned whilein the process of learning about functional compe-tencies through how the student engages thelearning experience. For example, we have count-less examples of students who engage the learn-ing process in a less than humble or honest man-ner, or with great fear, and it is these specificinstances that present an opportunity to focus onthe development of character.

However, many faculty would not consider ittheir role or responsibility to contribute to the de-velopment of character, and those that do see it astheir responsibility are often not sure how to goabout it. It is safe to say that there is still plenty ofskepticism around whether character can betaught, and if it were to be taught that it shouldremain in the domain of faculty in business ethicsor organizational behavior. We will return to thistheme later.

We conclude by suggesting that three things arerequired for faculty to embed character develop-ment within current functional competencycourses. First, it takes awareness that when weconsider the process of learning, there is tremen-dous opportunity to develop character in allcourses. Second, it requires ownership among fac-ulty that it is both their role and responsibility todevelop character while also delivering coreknowledge. Third, it requires character develop-ment of the faculty members themselves to engagethis process. We discuss this point in more detail inthe final section.

Character Development in Dedicated Courses

In spite of the promise held forth in developingcharacter across all courses, there is also the op-portunity for dedicated courses that focus on therole of leadership character and its development.

Regardless of whether we teachaccounting, finance, or organizationalbehavior, we also have the opportunityto develop a student’s character.


However, leadership courses within businessschools often focus on developing leadership skillsat one particular level rather than tackling theimportance of leadership as a skill required acrosslevels. For example, many programs includecourses on managing people (level of others andgroup) or leading change (level of the organiza-tion), but do not necessarily offer courses address-ing leadership of self.

However, an intentional focus on leadership ofself—especially the capabilities of self-awarenessand reflection—has been shown to have an impor-tant impact on group and organizational outcomes.For example, self-awareness has been identifiedas a critical component of authentic leadershiptheory (George, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003),which in turn has been shown to be an importantdeterminant of outcomes such as organizationalcommitment, the satisfaction employees have withtheir supervisor, and organizational citizenshipbehavior (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing,& Peterson, 2008). Assuming that the business cur-riculum already has courses that address leader-ship of others and of the organization, what can bedone then, from a content perspective, to facilitatestudent learning regarding leadership of self?

We begin with the premise that when it comes tocharacter development there are three primarygaps. First, many individuals are not aware of anymodels of virtues, character strengths, and values,and hence at a minimum, there is a need to exposestudents to learning opportunities that enablethem to uncover these elements. Second, many in-dividuals are unaware of where they stand rela-tive to character development, particularly giventhat most have not spent time thinking or reflectingabout their character. Hence, there is an importantreflective diagnostic element to developing char-acter. Last, closing the gap between knowing anddoing is a lifelong journey, much of which mustoccur in context, and hence, experiencing charac-ter development is necessary.

Several researchers have suggested potentialpedagogical approaches to teaching character, in-cluding increased training in ethical decision-making skills, experiential methods that challengeimplicit cognitive biases, reflection exercises de-signed to surface dissonance between the type ofperson one is and the type of person one mightwish to become, and mentoring. We review eachin turn.

Increased Training in Ethical Decision-MakingSkills

Increased training in ethical decision-makingskills can positively impact students’ level ofmoral development and thus lead to more ethicalbehaviors associated with positive characterstrengths. For example, Mintz (1996), Hartman(2006), and Falkenberg and Woiceshyn (2008) alladvocate the use of the case method to help stu-dents think through the ethical decision-makingprocess. This is because a well-taught case createsawareness of the ethical issue, allows for the crit-ical judgment of alternatives, and encourages theformulation of an intention to act ethically (e.g., theMerck and the Mectizan decision, or The Parable ofthe Sadhu). Comer and Vega (2008) similarly pro-mote the use of ethical decision-making scenariosto help surface individual differences in valuesand to condition students to apply ethical frame-works to decision making in general. Case studiescan also illustrate how little help certain ethicaltheories are when one encounters a highly ambig-uous context.

However, others have suggested that case stud-ies, even in ethical decision making, are inade-quate in promoting character development in thatthey prioritize critical thinking skills above allother abilities, and thus, do not adequately engagestudents’ personal values or virtues (Hill & Stew-art, 1999; Melé, 2005). Rather, students learn theimportance of knowing the various ethical frame-works and being able to employ these as decision-making criteria, but this does not subsequentlyguarantee ethical behavior in ambiguous contexts(Gentile, 2010). Numerous studies have shown thatincreased levels of moral reasoning and intentionsto act do not necessarily lead to action (Blasi, 1980;Geva, 2000). As such, we agree with Aristotle thatcharacter is not something that can be learnedfrom a textbook or through lecture format. Just asreading a company’s code of ethics or attending amandatory corporate conduct session is unlikely toinfluence employee ethical behavior, simply learn-ing about the different ethical frameworks in a rotemanner will be insufficient to shape character. Forexample, as Hill and Stewart (1999: 183) argued:“Teaching ethics, while an important startingpoint, falls short of the ultimate goal—developingvirtuous people.” There must be a stronger focuson ethics implementation in the new case studieswe develop. This would bring cases closer to theexperiential methods described below.


Experiential Methods

Many authors have suggested the use of more ex-periential methods to help students move fromknowing what is good to actually doing good (Han-nah & Avolio, 2010; Hill & Stewart, 1999). For exam-ple, role-playing—where students are put intocharacter-stretching situations—can serve to high-light existing cognitive biases or dominant behav-ioral preferences and act as interventions in posi-tive character development (Schmidt et al., 2009).Role-plays allow students to try on another’s feel-ings, thoughts, or behaviors by acting out the ac-tions of real or imaginary characters in the relativesafety of a learning environment (Mintz, 1996).

Although usually employed in ethical judgmentexercises, role-plays—when combined with feed-back and goal setting—can also be used effec-tively to train students in carrying through with theimplementation of ethical decisions. For example,in the Giving Voice to Values curriculum, role-playing modules are designed to develop students’character strengths that can be used to help stu-dents learn what to say and do if they were goingto act on their values in various ethically challeng-ing business scenarios (Gentile, 2010). The use ofsimulations or experiential exercises is common innumerous professions—medicine, policing, fire-fighting, management of nuclear power facilities,airlines and so forth—to train and develop individ-uals. These simulations require decisions and aset of specific actions to be initiated in ambiguousyet realistic situations. These exercises often ad-dress the intangibles of the interpersonal and emo-tional responses that are associated with decisionmaking and subsequent actions. Thus these simu-lations—of which the role-play is just one exam-ple—provide powerful teaching moments and op-portunities for students to reflect and learn.

For example, we teamed-up with local firefight-ers who took senior executives through a series ofmock rapid rescue intervention drills at their train-ing facilities, including rescuing dummies from asmoke-filled building. This simulation embeddedtraditional lessons around leadership, communi-cation, and teamwork, as well as highlighted theimportance of character in successfully completingthe exercises. In feedback sessions with the fire-fighters, executives talked openly about how thedrills raised their appreciation and understandingof the role of virtues and character strengths suchas humility, perseverance, courage, gratitude, pru-dence, and humor—linking these easily and read-

ily to character strengths required in organiza-tional success.

Service-learning opportunities, where studentsare engaged in different community outreach pro-grams, have similarly been shown to improve eth-ical decision-making abilities, and hence, to de-velop character strengths such as compassion,understanding, and tolerance (Hill & Stewart,1999). These experiential methods can range fromvolunteering in not-for-profit organizations, to pre-paring business plans for charities, to assisting inbuilding a house for Habitat for Humanity. Severalrecent articles in this journal have demonstratedthe positive impact of service-learning programson raising student awareness of ethical issues,developing a responsible mind-set, and engagingmoral values (Brower, 2011; Pless, Maak, & Stahl,2011). Service-learning methods are also particu-larly effective in combination with reflection exer-cises (Brower, 2011), which we discuss next.

Reflection

Leadership researchers have long suggested thateffective leaders need to develop self-awarenessand reflection capabilities. However, the necessityof these strengths for leading in a turbulent envi-ronment have only recently regained popularity inleadership theories, such as transcendent, authen-tic, primal, and level-5 leadership (Avolio &Gardner, 2005; Collins, 2001; Crossan et al., 2008;Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Authentic lead-ership development, for example, stresses the im-portance of self-awareness through reflection inassessing the congruency of one’s personal values,beliefs, feelings, and actions with how these playout in organizational settings (Ilies, Morgeson, &Nahrgang, 2005). Gardner and his colleagues ar-gued that authentic leadership has four key com-ponents: awareness, or knowledge and trust inone’s thoughts, feelings, motives, and values; un-biased processing, or objectivity, about and accep-tance of one’s positive and negative attributes; be-havior, or acting based on one’s true preferences,values, and needs rather than merely acting toplease others, secure rewards, or avoid punish-ments; and relational orientation, or achieving andvaluing truthfulness and openness in one’s closerelationships (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens,2011). They also concluded that there is “disagree-ment within the AL literature about the inclusion ofethics as a core component” (1129). Nevertheless,there appears to be a strong sentiment that there is


a moral element to authentic leadership, suggest-ing an opportunity to inject a virtues andcharacter-based perspective to authentic leader-ship exercises designed to deepen self-reflection.

For pedagogy, the role of reflection as a compo-nent of an undergraduate business ethics course,both as a guided and as an individual activity, hasbeen shown to increase cognitive moral develop-ment in business students (Schmidt et al., 2009),which in turn has been linked to enhanced ethicaldecision making (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010;O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). Through journaling,reaction, or reflection paper activities, students en-gage in a form of inductive reasoning where ab-stract concepts are connected to real-life examples(Hill & Stewart, 1999). Petriglieri, Wood, andPetriglieri (2011) demonstrate how dedicated re-flective engagement through professional counsel-ing can increase participant self-awareness.Stuebs (2011) advocates the use of character jour-nals to advance character development throughself-reflection. Novels, texts, plays, poetry, andother literature can also be used to enhance stu-dent reflection on ethical situations (von WeltzienHoivik, 2009). These techniques allow one to movefrom the question “What is the right course of ac-tion in this situation?” to a more character-basedframing, such as “What kind of person do I want tobe?” (Audi, 2012).

Mentoring

Last, mentors can supplement the learning or in-sights gained from these reflections. Mentorsshare their experiences—both good and bad—andimpart personal knowledge in areas that are chal-lenging for students, including business situationsthat involve ethical dilemmas. Students can learnfrom such real-world experiences and also receivehands-on support and coaching to practice anddevelop the requisite skills to do the right thing inchallenging situations. Numerous studies haveshown that developing strong mentoring relation-ships is an effective approach in the developmentof leaders (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004;O’Brien, Biga, Kessler, & Allen, 2010).

The above techniques—skills training, experien-tial methods, reflection exercises, and mentoring—represent but some of many possible approachesto character development. When considering theuse of these approaches with various audiences(undergraduate, graduate, and executive), we havefound as much variance in reception and applica-

tion of the concepts and approaches within anaudience as there is between audiences. Golemanet al. (2002) reported that an explicit focus on de-veloping students’ leadership of self-skills, regard-less of age, has a demonstrated impact on individ-ual self-awareness capabilities. The implication isthat leadership character development is a verypersonal process, and each individual engages thematerial in a different way. Regardless of age andwork experience, individuals differ on importantelements such as their capacity for self-reflection,life-changing experiences, and their openness tochange.

One of the primary impediments to implementa-tion may be faculty unease in teaching some ofthese more micro psychological methods. Not hav-ing advanced degrees in psychology, or being cer-tified in the use of assessment tools, faculty maybe hesitant to apply a battery of diagnostic tests tostudents lest they open a hornet’s nest of issuesthey feel ill-equipped to address. However, leader-ship of self, and in particular, character develop-ment are essential to effective leadership, andhence, we cannot turn our backs on this criticalelement of leadership development.

Thus we now turn our attention to the implica-tions for faculty and business schools as we con-sider implementing this agenda. Ensuring ade-quate coverage of the content of leadershipprocesses addresses only part of the problem incharacter development. While one might objec-tively discuss what content and what pedagogicaltechniques should be included in the business cur-riculum, what is less often considered is how is-sues of character are implicitly addressed in lead-ership development in business curricula. Here weturn the leadership lens on ourselves to assesshow we are implicitly teaching character to stu-dents at the level of self, others, and theorganization.

Implications for Faculty—Leadership of Self

Just as we advocate leadership of self to our stu-dents, so must we believe in its importance asapplied to ourselves as business school faculty.What values, beliefs, or attitudes do we uncon-sciously hold that may be biasing our pedagogicalapproach to leadership development?

Building on the work of Peterson and Seligman(2004), McGovern and Miller (2008) propose a set ofvirtues and character strengths as applied toteaching and learning that can serve as an en-


lightening self-reflection exercise for leadershipeducators. For example, when teaching, do weevaluate all the perspectives and intellectual con-tributions, even if some may be contrary to ourpersonal beliefs, thus displaying the characterstrengths of open-mindedness and critical think-ing reflective of the virtue of wisdom? Do we truth-fully declare our values and model how this qual-ity is necessary for building trusting relationships,thus displaying the character strengths of integrityand authenticity associated with the virtue of cour-age? Do we communicate our personal limitationsand acknowledge our weaknesses, thus display-ing the character strength of humility associatedwith the virtue of temperance?

According to Aristotle, one key to developingvirtuous character strengths is observing and thenmodeling the virtuous behavior of others (Aristotle,1999). In emulating this goodness in others andthrough the practice of the virtues, one trains one-self to act in accordance to the virtues (Mintz, 1996).Given our authority-imbued role as professors,business educators naturally serve as professionalrole models, and therefore, serve as character mod-els by default as well (Hill & Stewart, 1999).Whether we claim to use a value-neutral pedagog-ical approach, we nonetheless implicitly set anexample of good/bad or right/wrong behavior forour students by our behavior, both in and outsideof class. If we wish to develop leaders with integ-rity, we must act with integrity ourselves. If wewish to develop leaders with courage, we must actcourageously ourselves. When we fail to act inways that demonstrate these character strengths—by pandering to students to get good teachingevaluations or by being unfair in our markingschema, as examples—then we are reinforcing ex-periences that contribute to developing characterweaknesses both in ourselves as well as in ourstudents.

Reflection as a method for developing leader-ship of self is thus not limited to students. Educa-tors as well can use reflection techniques to eval-uate our reactions to critical teaching moments,either individually or through guided discussionswith other faculty members. Recalling specificclassroom incidents, evaluating our pedagogicaloptions in response to the experience, and inter-preting our actions in light of the characterstrengths we wish to embody can create learningopportunities. For example, if one has caught astudent plagiarizing the work of others on a take-home exam, yet does nothing immediate in re-

sponse, there is an opportunity to reflect on thisdecision, evaluate the alternative options, and in-terpret this behavior in light of the virtues or char-acter strengths one would like to have modeledand developed by students. Sharing reflection sto-ries with other faculty members creates additionalleadership of self learning opportunities (Mc-Govern & Miller, 2008). Our inclination is that thistype of self-evaluation among business educatorsis uncommon.

Implications for Faculty—Leadership of Others

As faculty members, we are also responsible fordeveloping positive relationships with others,within the classroom, the department, and thebusiness school as a whole. Within the classroom,we are accountable for setting rules of engage-ment and norms of appropriate behavior. If weencourage collaborative learning groups as a ped-agogical tool, then we are also responsible forestablishing proper guidelines for acceptable con-duct within these groups, and we cannot abdicatethis responsibility when issues of character sur-face. For example, how we choose to deal with theoft-heard complaint of the free-riding group mem-ber leaves a lasting impression on students aboutwhat the professor values. If we do nothing, cheat-ing behaviors become known as acceptable, andthis is amplified when repeated offenses go with-out deterrent. If, on the other hand, the free-rider isconfronted and reprimanded, students learn thatthis is not acceptable conduct and that the profes-sor values honesty, integrity, and fairness as de-sirable character strengths.

Leadership of others also includes how we man-age our relationships with other business schoolfaculty. Business schools seem to be notorious forcreating or at least tolerating fiefdoms and silosbetween groups, something that we would admon-ish in other organizations. In many instances itappears faculty are more aligned with their partic-ular functional discipline than they are with theirorganization. Unfortunately, similar to the debatearound business ethics in general, these fissureserode the collective capability of the organizationto foster a coherent approach to the teaching ofcharacter (Evans, Treviño, & Weaver, 2006). Thislack of coherence makes attempts to deal withbreaches of character particularly problematic forthe organization.


Implications for Faculty—Leadership ofthe Organization

As educational institutions, we teach character byproviding an environment that either fosters, ordoes not foster, virtuous behavior and where virtu-ous behaviors either can, or cannot, be observedand discovered. Perhaps the best-known exampleof institutionalized character development is atWest Point, the oldest military academy in theUnited States. A research project into the processesby which West Point delivers on their mission ofcharacter formation revealed that the institutionuses both traditional human resource manage-ment functions (e.g., recruitment, selection, jobrotation and training) and more progressive pro-cesses (e.g., organizational learning, organiza-tional design, and culture shaping) to instill posi-tive character strengths in its cadets (Offstein &Dufresne, 2007). The crux of the character develop-ment program is West Point’s Honor Code, whichreads “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or toleratethose that do.” However, the spirit of the code istaught such that a more positive framing is alsoemphasized, namely, that the cadet will not lie, butalso that the cadet will be truthful.

The teaching of character strengths at WestPoint permeates the organization’s strategies,structures, rules, and procedures. For example, ad-missions officers place a significant emphasis onevidence of selfless activities in their recruitmentprocess, rather than relying exclusively on GPAand SAT scores. The organizational design of char-acter development includes socialization pro-cesses that begin prior to arrival (e.g., communica-tion materials regarding the Honor Code),dissemination of values and ethics guides, and anintensive 9-week basic training on values uponarrival (e.g., including classes on what lying, steal-ing, and nontoleration mean) as well as specificclasses throughout cadets’ tenure, includingcourses on honor, ethical living, and respect fordiversity. The Honor Code is then modeled bothformally and informally not only by faculty andstaff, but also by senior cadets who are entrustedwith training new recruits. Ethical breaches areused as learning opportunities that include exten-sive mentoring and reflection exercises, and theeffectiveness of the honor system is tested in ex-periential exercises (Offstein & Dufresne, 2007). Inshort, character development is embedded in thevery heart of the organization’s strategies, struc-tures, and processes. It is important to note that

even with this kind of focus on character, organi-zations like West Point are vulnerable, as seen inthe recent rape lawsuit filed against West Pointreplete with allegations of a cover-up.

In leading at the organizational level in busi-ness programs then, we need to assess how ourstrategies, structures, and processes serve to de-velop (or not develop) character in our businessrecruits. Whether conscious or not, we impart whatwe value by whom we admit, by the criteria weuse, by how we socialize them to the school’s cul-ture and norms of appropriate behavior, by thecriteria we use in allocating student awards, inhow we deal with ethical transgressions, amongother structural influences and career manage-ment practices. We first signal what gets valued inour recruitment materials, which may emphasizestarting salaries over honor, integrity, and valor.Further, the very design of our curriculum itself—from the selection of a guiding mission or vision tothe selection or exclusion of various topics for in-struction to the cases or teaching materials weuse—also indicates what gets valued. Similarly,when we have systems that allow cheating to gounaddressed, we, in our role as leadership educa-tors, are complicit in demonstrating that honestyand integrity are not valued as characterstrengths. In contrast to West Point then, a deem-phasis on character development suggests a realgap in business education leadership.

While we have articulated the implications forfaculty, we acknowledge that the points we haveraised represent a very tall order. The magnitudeof the changes we have outlined are significant,and to expect easy and widespread adoption of ourrecommendations is unrealistic. For example,some faculty members may not have much interestin the virtue approach to business ethics; insteadespousing the view of Milton Friedman which is,roughly, to aim at the bottom line, that’s whatshareholders have a right to demand, and that’swhat contributes to the well-being of society in thelong run. Our experience has been a more evolu-tionary process whereby faculty members are

We first signal what gets valued in ourrecruitment materials, which mayemphasize starting salaries over honor,integrity, and valor.


drawn to the potential that exists to develop lead-ership character within themselves and their stu-dents. Their desire is not bounded by disciplinebut rather by their personal experience and read-iness to embrace the possibilities. We do not seethis as something that could be mandated in busi-ness schools. Such an approach would likely back-fire. Rather, we recommend a process that encour-ages and enables interested faculty. Adoption ofwhat we are proposing is not dependent on others,although as we discuss in the next section, it is nota solitary endeavor.

IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATION

Although it has been our intent to provide ideas forimplementation and application throughout thisessay, here we share our experience and experi-mentation with developing leadership character ina course we specifically designed for that purpose.The course is offered as an MBA elective that runsover 5 weeks with 10 sessions of 3 hours. The firstsession is largely an exploration of the core con-cepts (virtues, character strengths, values, and soforth) as well as an invitation to the students toengage in the learning and discovery process. Piv-otal to the learning experience is setting the tonethat this will be a different kind of course. Studentsare invited to introduce themselves using a symbolor object that signifies who they are. Successfulexecutives from the business community are as-signed as mentors to the students (Allen et al.,2004), such that each mentor has two or three stu-dents. Mentors are invited to the first class to greetthe students, share their experience, and begin todevelop a rapport with their mentees that contin-ues throughout the course and often beyond. Wehave some provocative videos, poems, and per-spectives designed to ignite the interest and curi-osity of the students in what at first appear to bevery abstract concepts. Students also keep reflec-tive journals (Stuebs, 2011) throughout the course.After the first 3-hour class, one of the stu-dents wrote:

Today’s class was a great help in defining ingreater detail my goals for the class and theimpact it will have on my personal and pro-fessional life. It was extremely insightful andhumbling to listen to classmates introducethemselves on a deeper level than I have re-lated to many of them and to hear the lifelongjourneys that the mentors for the course are

on. I see this course more now as a way tohelp me become comfortable with the lifelongself-reflection journey I will take over my lifeand a course that will provide me the re-sources both tactical tools and support net-work to successfully complete this journey. Iam very excited over the course of this weekto better define my personal philosophy oflife. I find that for the most part I have a set ofcore values that help guide the decision[s] Imake in life, but struggle to articulate thesevalues in a genuine and thoughtful manner.My hope for the remaining classes this weekis that I will start this process and throughmore self-reflection define at a much deeperlevel the core values that govern my life andhave an understanding how they will impactmy leadership style.

Another student wrote:

Throughout this course I’m excited to learnabout myself so I can be an effective leader,and not just in the workplace but within mycommunity. Before reading the article on tran-scendent leadership, I never recognized in itsentirety, how important having an under-standing and awareness of self is. It obvi-ously makes sense, a leader who does notalign their values with the values of the or-ganization or strategic direction will not beable to effectively gain trust or respect of his/her team. Only by having a more thoroughand in-depth understanding of self can aleader then effectively be able to deliver. Thisentire concept is obviously very new to me. Inmy past experience, employees were ordinar-ily promoted and put into a leadership posi-tion as a result of their technical competen-cies. While this is definitely important,sometimes a greater emphasis on technicalaptitude can facilitate the promotion of inef-fective leaders.

I’m excited to participate in the journeythat I believe this course will take me on. I amstill a little hesitant to delve deep into myselfas I’ve never put myself in a situation thatwould call for me to do that, and I’m a littleanxious to acknowledge my weaknesses andbe vulnerable. I am quite shy and reservedand therefore am looking forward to pushingmy boundaries and leaving my comfort zoneand ultimately growing.


We use the values in action (VIA) diagnostic toolto help the students unpack their virtues and char-acter strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and theSchwarz value survey to help them self-assesstheir values (Schwartz, 1996). The movie Invictushas proven extremely valuable as a means for thestudents to identify character strengths and virtuesin Nelson Mandela and Francois Pienaar, the cap-tain of the South African rugby team. For example,consider the power of the movie to help studentsgrasp the depth of forgiveness Mandela exhibitedas he worked to unite a country even though hehad been incarcerated for almost 30 years. Themovie also illustrates many other elements suchas humility, courage, perseverance, judgment, andempathy.

Personal life stories are used to help studentsreflect on who they are and why they have becomethe persons they are today (George, 2003;Petriglieri et al., 2011; Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Casestudies are also used to identify these attributes inothers (Hartman, 2006; Sadler-Smith, 2012). For ex-ample, the Craig Kielburger six-part video caseseries, which was created for the course, was pro-found, as students had the chance to wrestle withthe issues Craig (an activist for the rights of chil-dren) faced in the strategic evolution of his not-for-profit and for-profit organizations (Free the Chil-dren; and Me to We). They could see the exercise ofcharacter and its impact on choices made, as manyof the choices were rooted in courage, justice, wis-dom, temperance, humanity, and transcendence.There were many journal entries about Craig, andthe inspiration he provided was evident as re-vealed in the following entry:

Upon reflection of Craig’s visit, I find myselfenergized and re-motivated to continue on thepath that I’ve chosen. I’m humbled by the factthat individuals, like Craig, can lead their lifeand make their choices with such convictionat a similar age as me. It’s possible! Potentialcan be realized and put toward the socialgood. All it takes is a willingness to act, con-viction in one’s beliefs, and a spark to lightthe fire.

We also rely on Gentile’s (2010) Giving Voice toValues (GVV) materials to help students bridgeintent and behaviors as depicted in Figure 1. Sim-ilar to the findings of a recent survey of MBA stu-dents (Aspen Institute, 2008), the majority of ourstudents also recognized that they are ill-equipped

to face ambiguous ethical issues at work, particu-larly as they anticipate entering into situationsthat are in conflict with their values. The GVVscripting and role-playing exercises helped stu-dents prepare for these difficult conversations.Courage and candor were embedded in the exer-cises we used.

The highlight of the course was the student-ledworkshops in which groups select one of the sixvirtues and prepare a 1-hour workshop for theclass designed to help their peers understand thecharacter strengths associated with that virtue andengage them in developmental exercises todeepen them. For example, to examine the virtue oftranscendence, we engaged a near-death visual-ization experience in order to help students cometo terms with their sense of purpose.

The following journal entry by one student pro-vides a good overview of the entire courseexperience:

I must admit that when I first signed up forthis course I really did not know what I wasgetting myself into. I have always been areflective individual who took the time towrite in a journal growing up. However, inuniversity that reflection piece got put on theback shelf as school work, labs, extracurricu-lar activities and job searches took over. Thiscourse has given me the opportunity to reig-nite my reflective side and discuss conceptsand ideas that I have never had the opportu-nity to do in a classroom setting.

I found the reflection component and theability to discover myself and my values to bethe most precious part of taking this course.While many in the MBA class speculated thatthis would be a so-called fluff course, I cannow confidently say that it was not. Thespeakers that were brought in to discussvalue systems and leadership styles werephenomenal and have contributed to mylearning in a way that textbooks and case-books could not.

Furthermore, one of the most valuablecomponents that I found to this course wasthe incorporation of mentors . . . I feel that thementors really offered some real world advicefrom their many experiences and enriched mylearning.

During the first couple of classes I didstruggle a little bit as I found the discussionto be somewhat abstract. The concepts that


were discussed seemed to be overly philo-sophical and I was not sure where it wouldgo. However, [name instructor] clearly had avision for this course and as we progressedand did our own values analysis the wholecourse gradually came together for me. I re-ally liked the idea of starting off with abstractconcepts, focusing in on what those conceptsmeant for me as an individual given my valuesystem and ultimately how I would applythose concepts in my life moving forward.

Since taking this course I have spoken toa number of people about it including alumniand many wish that they would have had theopportunity to experience this course forthemselves. I feel that it was a pivotal com-ponent for me in this MBA program becauseat the end of the day I can learn skills butvalues must be discovered and nurtured. Thiscourse did that for me.

And another journal entry provides further in-sight into the impact of the course:

This course was unlike any other I havetaken. I have never felt so at ease with othersin the classroom as I became. Seeing grownmen cry and realizing that age came withfewer answers than I had previously thoughtmade me realize how young my parents prob-ably feel sometimes. I think this insight intothe human experience is a powerful tool. Ithas given me the resolve to never stop settingnew goals. To question people who think theyhave all the answers and figure out the worldfor yourself without being afraid of the infor-mation we don’t have. We’ll never have per-fect knowledge.

I think this course made me make peacewith myself. I think I’ve wanted to conformmore than I should have. It’s a survival mech-anism that leads you to compromise valuesand virtues. Through the work of Mary Gen-tile, I have a better script for taking a standand the VIA diagnostic has given me the lex-icon to describe who I am—in words.

CONCLUSION—IT TAKES A VILLAGE

Our objective herein was to argue for an increasedattention to leadership character development inbusiness education. By focusing on character andhow this is developed at the individual, group, and

organizational levels, we highlighted how existingpractices have privileged the teaching of func-tional content over character and how we, as fac-ulty, within disciplines, and within businessschools, either do or do not support virtuous lead-ership development through our own behaviors,relationships, and structures. Most important, weprovided concrete suggestions on how to integratea focus on character development into existingbusiness programs, both in terms of individualcourses as well as the overall curriculum—provid-ing the implementation of an MBA elective onleadership character at our school as an exampleof these ideas in application. The program directorfor the undergraduate program has since re-quested that we deliver the same course in thatprogram.

We were motivated to pursue this agendathrough our conversations with executives who ex-pressed the view that there are shortcomings in thedevelopment of leadership character in both busi-ness schools and organizations. These executiveswere looking to business schools to provide lead-ership in this area. The challenge for businessschools to deliver on character development issubstantial.

While the efforts on the part of one or two in-spired faculty acting alone may foster characterdevelopment in some individuals, the magnitudeof the need for leadership character developmentrequires a broad coalition to make substantialprogress (Sadler-Smith, 2012). The ancient proverbattributed to the Igbo and Yoruba regions of Nige-ria—“It takes a village to raise a child”—impliesthat raising a child is a communal effort. That is,the parents, the extended family, and the broadercommunity, all share in the responsibility of rais-ing a child. Aristotle also implied that virtues andcharacter strengths can only be learned by indi-viduals living in strong and virtuous communities.We see this proverb as a metaphor for the devel-opment of leadership character in businessschools.

The business school village encompasses anumber of important individuals beyond the fac-ulty from the various functional disciplines. It in-cludes the program directors—those that are re-sponsible for leading the undergraduate,graduate, and executive education programs.These individuals, alongside the dean of the busi-ness school, provide the context for the educa-tional experience and, through their decisions andactions, signal in subtle or not-so-subtle ways their


level of support for the focus on character develop-ment. If there is a true commitment to developingleaders that will have a positive impact on theworld, we would expect the dean to communicatethe importance of the role of character in businessto the various audiences of the school. In addition,we would expect the program directors to supportthe development of specific course materials forthe development of character and to signal thatthis focus is a pillar of the program. Both the deanand the program directors are in positions to pro-vide the resources to the faculty to encourage themto develop their knowledge and skills required todeliver on the building of character. Also impor-tant is that those in leadership positions at thebusiness school act on inappropriate behavior andsignal behavioral examples of virtuous characterstrengths. We are privileged that our dean hastaken a leading role in advocating for the impor-tance of leadership character development in thebusiness school. She has done so through numer-ous internal and external activities including avisible presence at the practitioner roundtable dis-cussions, presentations at faculty and alumnievents, coauthorship on leadership character pub-lications, speaking opportunities to executive au-diences, and consistent messaging on the topicwithin the popular business press.

Alumni can also play an important role, as mem-bers of the business school village and can becalled upon to assist in the development of char-acter by serving as mentors, as they did in ourleadership character course. Furthermore, alumnicould offer their assistance in developing learningexperiences that foster character development,such as case studies—either written or live ones.Alumni are in a unique position where they canprovide concrete examples and advice to the stu-dents on how to transfer their knowledge and skillsfrom an educational institution to the actual work-place. We need positive examples of leadership,especially cases where individuals were calledupon to demonstrate character strengths such asbravery, integrity, or persistence. Students shouldbe exposed to examples of business leaders whochose to do the right thing and whose decisions ledto significant positive outcomes. Such leaderscould articulate their motivations and how theyovercame the challenges in implementing their de-cisions. By providing students models of good be-havior, we encourage the development of the char-acter strengths associated with that behavior.

Recruiters and the companies that employ busi-

ness school graduates also play a crucial role inleadership character development. Students fre-quently remark that they see little on the recruitingagenda that signals the importance of character.When recruiters focus on student marks or howclever the students are at solving problems, theysend clear signals to students on what the com-pany values, and this is reflected in what students’desire from their business education. Many busi-ness schools have a dedicated group of staff whoare the linchpin between the students and recruit-ers. In our school these individuals are in a keyposition to guide recruiters on the protocol of thebusiness school, including student expectationsabout character, since they coach organizations tobe clear in their recruiting messages and conveywhat they value and how they live it. As a practicalmatter, this essay could be provided to recruitersso that they understand their role and the expec-tation of students. As one of the executives wetalked to stated: “If you’re in an interview talking tosomebody and they do not communicate to youthat values and integrity are enormously impor-tant, I’d be out of there faster than you can count tothree because the reality is that first class leaders,corporate or otherwise, who don’t put integrity andthose values at the very top are not people in myview that you should associate with (personal com-munication).” Our work on leadership characterhas led to several invitations to work with compa-nies on how they can move the leadership charac-ter agenda forward. A focus on character develop-ment thus has the potential to significantly affectpersonal success in the transition from student toemployee and eventually, to business leaders.

Last, the admissions department also plays acrucial role in the business school village as thefirst point of contact in terms of students’ under-standing of what gets valued at the institution. Acommon question raised by the executives wespoke to was “Are you selecting the right studentsinto the program?” Intrinsic in the definition ofvirtuous character is that an individual “not onlyacts courageously, temperately, justly and so onbut also has good reason and a genuine desire fordoing it. That is, the moral agent acts from the rightmotive—to be virtuous” (Mintz, 1996: 833). Are weselecting students into our business programs thathave a genuine desire to act virtuously? Bergman,Westerman, and Daly (2010) suggested that a largepercentage of business students are in fact funda-mentally narcissistic and motivated primarily bythe desire to become rich. Lan, Gowing, McMahon,


Rieger, and King (2008) found that the primary mo-tivational value of business majors is hedonism. Ifthis is the case, how do we get them to be moti-vated to act more virtuously or encourage them toengage in reflective learning? Most schools lookbeyond grades to understand the profile of thestudent with respect to leadership and extracurric-ular activities. There are many ways in which ad-mission departments could expand their criteriafor recruitment and selection. For example, the ad-missions department at our school looks for spe-cific values, traits, and motives in the interviewprocess, through probing questions. While not per-fect, the interview process tries to identify charac-teristics such as personal accountability, opennessto different opinions, and temperance. Questionsare based on critical incidents (Flanagan, 1954).

The village extends to other faculties on campusthat could support the business school in shapingthe character of its students. For example, expertsin psychological assessments and counseling psy-chologists may help faculty during a particularcourse. Education faculty too may have critical in-sights that help to develop character. Our asser-tion is that if we want to make a meaningful, if notsignificant leap forward, in the development ofleadership character then we must, in addition tolooking at the philosophy and business literatures,integrate findings from others fields such as psy-chology, education, social work, the field of sports,and so forth. Extraordinary outcomes may beachieved when an integrative approach is taken,such as has been demonstrated in the area of sus-tainability (Kurland et al., 2010).

Similar to the debate around the responsibilityfor business ethics education in general, it will nodoubt be a challenge to have the various depart-ments come together and tackle character from aninterdisciplinary angle (Evans et al., 2006). Wehave found that our work in this area has promptedgreater collaboration between disciplines andseeded joint research projects with colleagues infinance (e.g., the role of character in value invest-ing) and marketing (e.g., leadership character andinfluence tactics). Some academic institutionshave been successful in implementing promisingnew ways to foster such collaborations, for exam-ple by forming scholarly communities around com-mon interests and “big” questions, or by adjustingpromotion-and-tenure guidelines to recognize thatinterdisciplinary work is important, and lookingfavorably upon individuals who have demon-strated a track record of working with colleagues

from different departments. Some institutions—in-cluding our own university, through funding inter-disciplinary development initiatives—have goneas far as financially supporting collaboration byproviding funding that encourages the interdisci-plinary research required to tackle increasinglysophisticated research issues.

Our focus on leadership character developmentand the view that “it takes a village” is entirelyconsistent with Ghoshal’s (2005) impassioned mes-sage to members of the village that we need torethink management theory, education, and prac-tice. He argued that “by propagating ideologicallyinspired amoral theories, business schools haveactively freed their students from any sense ofmoral responsibility” (2005: 76) and to reinstate eth-ical or moral concerns into the practice of manage-ment, “an alternative theory can only emerge fromthe collective efforts of many” (88). Because busi-ness schools have been critiqued for focusing onlyon developing managers’ technical competencies(Moore, 2008), our aim here was to offer an ap-proach that supplements that technical compe-tence with leadership character.

The ideas in this essay are not just a possibility.They are a reality that exists. Building on the find-ings from our conversations with executives, wedesigned an MBA course that integrates many ofthe recommendations we make herein (e.g., skillstraining, experiential methods, reflection exer-cises, and mentoring) with the explicit goal of in-troducing self-reflection and a focus on virtues,values, and character strengths into the businesscurriculum. Our personal experience is that expos-ing both our students and ourselves as faculty tothis process has been not only possible, but alsoprofound for all involved as the comments from thestudents’ reflective journals illustrate. We ac-knowledge the difficulty in determining whetherany program makes students behave more virtu-ously or ethically as opposed to making them morefluent in discussing ethics. Our approach andideas for developing leadership character are astarting point for discussion and subsequent ini-tiatives. Validation of these ideas, of course, isrequired, and this process too offers excitingopportunities.

We therefore end on the optimistic note that thisfocus on leadership character development has notonly been extremely well received by the studentsin our leadership character course, but that it hasalso been embraced by our dean, program direc-tors, faculty from disciplines other than business


ethics and organizational behavior, our alumni,and recruiting organizations. In presenting this es-say, we hope therefore to have at a minimum in-spired educators to reflect on their role in develop-ing leaders of character that can make a positivedifference in the world by providing practical rec-ommendations that can be implemented in bothstand-alone courses as well as in general curricu-lum redesign. Given the multitude of recent crisesand the subsequent calls for business schools toreconsider not only their course content but alsothe character of the students they graduate, wefeel the time is right to engage in a deeper conver-sation about the role of character development asthe responsibility of the broader business schoolvillage.

REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. 2004.Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 127–135.

Alzola, M. 2008. Character and environment: The status of vir-tues in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 78: 343–357.

Alzola, M. 2012. The possibility of virtue. Business Ethics Quar-terly, 22: 377–404.

Anscombe, E. 1958. Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33:1–19.

Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean ethics. T. Irwin, Trans. Indianapo-lis, IN: Hacket Publishing.

Arjoon, S. 2000. Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business.Journal of Business Ethics, 28: 159–178.

Aspen Institute. 2008. Where will they lead? MBA student atti-tudes about business and society. New York: The AspenInstitute Center for Business Education.

Audi, R. 2012. Virtue ethics as a resource in business. BusinessEthics Quarterly, 22: 273–291.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. 2005. Authentic leadership devel-opment: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.Leadership Quarterly, 16: 315–338.

Bergman, J. Z., Westerman, J. W., & Daly, J. P. 2010. Narcissism inmanagement education. Academy of Management Learn-ing and Education, 9: 119–131.

Blasi, A. 1980. Bridging moral cognition and moral action: Acritical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88:1–45.

Brower, H. 2011. Sustainable development through servicelearning: A pedagogical framework and case example in aThird World context. Academy of Management Learningand Education, 10: 58–76.

Collins, J. 2001. Good to great. New York: HarperCollins.

Comer, D. R., & Vega, G. 2008. Using the PET assessment instru-ment to help students identify factors that could impedemoral behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 77: 129–145.

Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. 2013. In search of virtue:The role of virtues, values and character strengths in ethi-cal decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113: 567–581.

Crossan, M., Vera, D., & Nanjad, L. 2008. Transcendent leader-ship: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments. Lead-ership Quarterly, 19: 569–581.

de Colle, S., & Werhane, P. H. 2008. Moral motivation acrossethical theories: What can we learn from designing corpo-rate ethics programs? Journal of Business Ethics, 81: 751–764.

Doris, J. M. 2002. Lack of character: Personality and moral be-havior. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Economist [Electronic version]. September 24. 24, 2009. Thepedagogy of the privileged, Retrieved: September 27,2009, from: http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id�14493183.

Evans, J. M., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. 2006. Who’s in theethics driver’s seat? Factors influencing ethics in the MBAcurriculum. Academy of Management Learning and Educa-tion, 5: 278–293.

Falkenberg, L., & Woiceshyn, J. 2008. Enhancing business ethics:Using cases to teach moral reasoning. Journal of BusinessEthics, 79: 213–217.

Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2005. Economics languageand assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling.Academy of Management Review, 30: 8–24.

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 51: 327–358.

Gandz, J., Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Stephenson, C. 2010. Lead-ership on trial: A manifesto for leadership development.London, ON: Ivey Publishing.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P.2011. Authentic leadership: A review of the literature andresearch agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1120–1145.

Gentile, M. C. 2010. Giving voice to values: How to speak yourmind when you know what’s right. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

George, B. 2003. Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secretsto creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Geva, A. 2000. Moral decision making in business: A phase-model. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10: 773–803.

Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroyinggood management practices. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, 4: 75–91.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal leadership:Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. 2010. Moral potency: Building thecapacity for character-based leadership. Consulting Psy-chology Journal: Practice and Research, 62: 291–310.

Harman, G. 2003. No character or personality. Business EthicsQuarterly, 13: 87–94.

Hartman, C. L., & Beck-Dudley, C. L. 1999. Marketing strategiesand the search for virtue: A case analysis of the body shop,international. Journal of Business Ethics, 20: 249–263.


Hartman, E. M. 2006. Can we teach character? An Aristoteliananswer. Academy of Management Learning and Education,5: 68–81.

Hill, A., & Stewart, I. 1999. Character education in businessschools: Pedagogical strategies. Teaching Business Ethics,3: 179–193.

Horvath, C. M. 1995. Excellence v. effectiveness: MacIntyre’scritique of business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 199–532.

Hursthouse, R. 1999. On virtue ethics. Oxford, U.K: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. 2005. Authenticleadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understandingleader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 373–394.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. 2009. The bright anddark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical exten-sion of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20:855–875.

Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. 2010. Badapples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidenceabout sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95: 1–31.

Krishnan, V. R. 2008. Impact of MBA education on students’values: Two longitudinal studies. Journal of Business Ethics,83: 233–246.

Kupperman, J. J. 1995. Character. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Kupperman, J. J. 2001. The indispensability of character. Philos-ophy, 76: 239–250.

Kurland, N. B., Michaud, K. E. H., Best, M., Wohldmann, E., Cox,H., Pontikis, K., & Vasishth, A. 2010. Overcoming silos: Therole of an interdisciplinary course in shaping a sustainabil-ity network. Academy of Management Learning and Edu-cation, 9: 457–476.

Lan, G., Gowing, M., McMahon, S., Rieger, F., & King, N. 2008. Astudy of the relationship between personal values andmoral reasoning of undergraduate business students. Jour-nal of Business Ethics, 78: 121–139.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. 2003. Authentic leadership develop-ment. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn, eds.,Positive organizational scholarship: 241–258. San Francisco,CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

MacIntyre, A. C. 1981. After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. 2008. The five-factor theory ofpersonality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin, eds.,Handbook of personality: Theory and research: 159–181.New York: Guilford Publications.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebíck-ová, M., Avia, M. D., Sanz, J., and Sánchez-Bernardos, M. L.,Kusdil, M. E., Woodfield, R., Saunders, P. R., & Smith, P. B.2000. Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality andlife span development. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 78: 173–186.

McGovern, T. V., & Miller, S. L. 2008. Integrating teacher behav-iors with character strengths and virtues for faculty devel-opment. Teaching of Psychology, 35: 278–285.

McKinnon, C. 1999. Character, virtue theories, and the vices.Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Melé, D. 2005. Ethical education in accounting: Integratingrules, values and virtues. Journal of Business Ethics, 57:97–109.

Mintz, S. M. 1996. Aristotelian virtue and business ethics edu-cation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15: 827–838.

Moore, G. 2008. Re-imagining the morality of management: Amodern virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly,18: 483–511.

O’Brien, K., Biga, A., Kessler, S., & Allen, T. 2010. Mentoring: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Management, 36: 537–554.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. 2005. A review of the empiricalethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 59: 375–413.

Offstein, E. H., & Dufresne, R. L. 2007. Building strong ethics andpromoting positive character development: The influenceof HRM at the United States Military Academy at WestPoint. Human Resource Management, 46: 95–114.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. 2004. The VIA Classification ofCharacter Strengths. Retrieved from http://www.viacharacter.org/www/en-us/viainstitute/classification.aspx

Petriglieri, G., Wood, J. D., & Petriglieri, J. L. 2011. Up close andpersonal: Building foundations for leaders’ developmentthrough personalization of management learning. Acad-emy of Management Learning and Education, 10: 230–450.

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. 2011. Developing responsi-ble global leaders through international service-learningprograms: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Manage-ment Learning and Education, 10: 237–260.

Provis, C. 2010. Virtuous decision making for business ethics.Journal of Business Ethics, 91: 3–16.

Rest, J. R. 1986. Moral development: Advances in research andtheory. New York: Praeger.

Rokeach, M. J. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: FreePress.

Sadler-Smith, E. 2012. Before virtue: Biology, brain, behavior,and “moral sense”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22: 351–376.

Schmidt, C. D., McAdams, C. R., & Foster, V. 2009. Promoting themoral reasoning of undergraduate business studentsthrough a deliberate psychological education-based class-room intervention. Journal of Moral Education, 38: 315–334.

Schon, D. A. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner: Towarda new design for teaching and learning in the professions.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwartz, S. 1996. Value priorities and behavior: Applying atheory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M.Olson & M. P. Zanna, eds., The Ontario symposium, vol. 8.The psychology of values: 1–24. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. 2005. What’s your story?: A life-storiesapproach to authentic leadership development. LeadershipQuarterly, 16: 395–417.

Solomon, R. C. 1992. Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aris-totelean approach to business ethics. Business Ethics Quar-terly, 2: 317–339.


Sonenshein, S. 2007. The role of construction, intuition, andjustification in responding to ethical issues at work: Thesensemaking-intuition model. Academy of ManagementReview, 32: 1022–1040.

Sosik, J. J., & Cameron, J. C. 2010. Character and authentictransformational leadership behavior: Expanding the as-cetic self toward others. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 62: 251–269.

Stuebs, M. 2011. The character journal: An assessment tool foradvancing character learning. In D. L. Swanson & D. G.Fisher, eds., Got ethics? Toward assessing business ethicseducation: 381–401. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Thompson, A. D., Grahek, M., Phillips, R. E., & Fay, C. L. 2008. Thesearch for worthy leadership. Consulting Psychology Jour-nal: Practice and Research, 60: 366–382.

Treviño, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: Aperson-situation interactionist model. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 11: 601–617.

von Weltzien Hoivik, H. 2009. Developing students’ competencefor ethical reflection while attending business school. Jour-nal of Business Ethics, 88: 5–9.

Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peter-son, S. 2008. Authentic leadership: Development and vali-dation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management,34: 89–126.

Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. 2011. Economicseducation and greed. Academy of Management Learningand Education, 10: 643–660.

Whetstone, J. T. 2001. How virtue fits within business ethics.Journal of Business Ethics, 33: 101–114.

Wright, T. A., & Goodstein, J. 2007. Character is not “dead” inmanagement research: A review of individual characterand organizational-level virtue. Journal of Management, 33:928–958.

Zimbardo, P. G. 2008. The Lucifer effect: Understanding howgood people turn evil. New York: Random House, Inc.

Mary Crossan received her PhDfrom Western University whereshe is currently a professor ofstrategic management at theIvey Business School. Crossan

conducts research in leadership, organizational learning, andimprovisation.

Daina Mazutis received her PhDfrom the Ivey Business School atWestern University and is cur-rently a professor of strategy,leadership and ethics at IMDLausanne. Mazutis conducts re-

search on the relationship between strategic leadership, deci-sion making, and corporate social responsibility.

Gerard Seijts received his PhDfrom the University of Toronto. Heis a professor of organizationalbehavior at the Ivey BusinessSchool at Western University.Seijts conducts research in lead-ership, motivation and goal set-

ting, and organizational change. He is the executive director ofthe Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership.

Jeffrey Gandz received his PhDand MBA from York University.Gandz is currently a professor ofstrategic leadership and manag-ing director of program design inthe Executive Development divi-

sion at the Ivey Business School at Western University and hasformerly served as associate dean and MBA program director.


Copyright of Academy of Management Learning & Education is the property of Academy ofManagement and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

developing leadership character in business … leadership character in business programs mary...

Documents