future of ethically effective leadership

Future of Ethically Effective Leadership

Chaudhary Imran Sarwar

Received: 13 August 2011 / Accepted: 10 March 2012 / Published online: 29 March 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This research focuses on (a) introducing and

exploring ethically effective leadership, (b) introducing and

testing theory on triad of typical–maximal–ideal ethically

effective leadership performances, (b) theorizing and

empirically testing that each of typical–maximal–ideal

ethically effective leadership performance is different from

each others, in other words exploring mean differences

between each pair of typical–maximal–ideal effective

leadership performances, (c) introducing, theorizing, and

testing mechanism to quantify respondents’ intrinsic desire

and inherent potential to enhance their ethically effective

leadership performances, (d) exploring precedents of each

of typical–maximal–ideal ethically effective leadership

performances, and finally (e) exploring bases and feasi-

bility of virtual, robotic, and mixed reality ethically

effective leadership that may or may not be same as con-

ventional ethically effective leadership. This paper

explores global leadership aspect of ethically effective

leadership performance at three data collection levels

(via typical, maximal, and ideal effective leadership

performances) adding precision to assessment of ethically

effective leadership and resolving an important challenge

(precise assessment) to ethical leadership development. It

explores respondents’ typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T, their maximal ethically effective lead-

ership performance E_M, and their ideal ethically effective

leadership performance E_I. It presents non-western per-

spectives on ethically effective leadership disregarding

homogenization of leadership behavior. It advances our

insight into ethical leadership development by empirically

identifying presence, direction and magnitude of respon-

dents’ (a) intrinsic desire and (b) existing intrinsic potential

for alteration of their ethically effective leadership. Means

of typical ethically effective leadership performance E_T,

maximal ethically effective leadership performance E_M,

and ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I

are distinct. Typical ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_T is positively associated with maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M and ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I. This article con-

cludes that the selected leaders report their ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I to be higher than

their typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T and maximal ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_M depicting significant intrinsic desire for 14 %

enhancing their ethically effective leadership performance.

Respondents have significant existing intrinsic potential for

10 % enhancing their ethically effective leadership per-

formance. Regression constants for regression models for

typical ethically effective leadership performance E_T,

maximal ethically effective leadership performance E_M

and ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I

are significant depicting that the researchers have to look

for other variables to fully explain variance in typical

ethically effective leadership performance E_T, maximal

C. I. Sarwar (&)

Mixed Reality University, 20, A-I, Township, Lahore 54000,

Pakistan

e-mail: [email protected]

C. I. Sarwar

Chaudhary Building, Golden Estate, Adjacent Fahad CNG,

12-KM, Main Raiwind Road, Lahore, Pakistan

C. I. Sarwar

Creative Researcher, 57-W, Tariq Bin Ziyad Colony,

Sahiwal 57000, Punjab, Pakistan

C. I. Sarwar

CESTL, Cell for Structural Transformational Leadership,

Institute of Business Administration, University of the Punjab,

Lahore, Pakistan

123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 113:81–89

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1283-9

ethically effective leadership performance E_M and ideal

ethically effective leadership performance E_I. Regression

coefficient of typical ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_T is significant in model for ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I as well as maximal

ethically effective leadership performance E_M and vice

versa. So, the paper suggests that training strategies may be

feasible to alter typical ethically effective leadership per-

formance E_T and maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M in such a way as to bring it closer to

ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I but for

this, researchers have to look for other variables too.

Keywords Ethically effective leadership �Typical ethically effective leadership performance �Maximal ethically effective leadership performance �Ideal ethically effective leadership performance �Intrinsic desire to enhance ethically effective leadership

performance � Inherent potential to enhance ethically

effective leadership performance � Conventional ethically

effective leadership � Virtual ethically effective leadership �Robotic ethically effective leadership � Mixed reality

ethically effective leadership

Introduction, Background, and Objectives

Every one of us is a leader and is ethically responsible as well

as ethically accountable for all interactions with other peo-

ple. This research, by integrating the adapted construct of

effectiveness as defined by Avolio and Bass (2004) with

typical, maximal performance (Barnes and Morgeson 2007;

DuBois et al. 1993; Sackett et al. 1988) and ideal perfor-

mance (Klehe and Latham 2006) introduces theory on triads

of typical–maximal–ideal ethically effective leadership

performances (i.e., typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T, maximal ethically effective leader-

ship performance E_M, and ideal ethically effective lead-

ership performance E_I) adding precision and diversification

to online, robotic or otherwise leadership assessment. Hence,

this research defines typical–maximal–ideal ethically

effective leadership performances (typical ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_T, maximal ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_M, and ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I, respectively) to be the

self-reported average–maximal–desired frequency of being

effective in ethically meeting own, others’ professional

career-related needs and organizational requirements, fairly

representing others to higher authority and leading a group

that is performing ethically.

So our first objective is to find means of typical ethically

effective leadership performance E_T, maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M, and ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I.

Within each triad—each of typical, maximal, and ideal

ethically effective leadership performance is theoretically,

conceptually, and may be empirically distinct providing

base mechanism to quantify respondents’ intrinsic desire

and inherent potential to enhance their ethically effective

leadership performances. According to Avolio and Bass

(1998), you can drag a horse to water but you can’t make it

drink unless it is thirsty. Hence introducing and testing

mechanism to quantify respondents’ intrinsic desire and

inherent potential to enhance their leadership performance

is important.

By benchmarking respondents’ ideal ethically effective

leadership performances and via its’ gap analysis with

respondents’ (a) typical, and (b) maximal ethically

effective leadership performances, intrinsic desire to

enhance ethically effective leadership performance is

based on (a) average of differences between means of (a-

i) desired frequency and average frequency, and (a-ii)

desired frequency and maximal frequency of activities

related to ethically effective leadership performances and

thereafter (b) comparing this average difference with

respondents’ average frequency of activities related to

ethically effective leadership performances and taking

percentages.

Furthermore, by benchmarking respondents’ maximal

ethically effective leadership performances and via its’ gap

analysis with respondents’ typical ethically effective

leadership performances, existing inherent potential to

enhance ethically effective leadership performance is based

on (c) difference between means of self-reported maximal

frequency and average frequency of activities related to

ethically effective leadership performance and thereafter

(d) comparing this difference with respondents’ average

frequency of activities related to ethically effective lead-

ership performances and taking percentages.

So our second objective is to find mean differences

between each pair of typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T, maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M, and ideal ethically effective leader-

ship performance E_I.

Null Hypotheses are

m E Ið Þ � m E Tð Þ ¼ 0

m E Ið Þ � m E Mð Þ ¼ 0

m E Mð Þ � m E Tð Þ ¼ 0;

where m(E_T), m(E_M), and m(E_I) are mean scores of


maximal ethically effective leadership performance E_M,

and ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I,

respectively.

82 C. I. Sarwar

123

As an auxiliary to our second objective, and based on

the theory and mechanism described above, our third

objective is to quantify respondents’ intrinsic desire and

inherent potential to enhance their ethically effective

leadership performance.

Furthermore as a step towards exploring the precedents

of each of typical ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_T, maximal ethically effective leadership per-

formance E_M, and ideal ethically effective leadership

performance E_I our fourth objective is to explore Pearson

correlations between each pair of typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T, maximal ethically effective

leadership performance E_M, and ideal ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_I and our fifth objective is to

find regression models for each of typical ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_T, maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M, and ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I as dependent variable

and the other two variables as independent variables.

Null hypotheses are

Pearson correlation coefficient between E I and E M ¼ 0

Pearson correlation coefficient between E I and E T ¼ 0

Pearson correlation coefficient between E T and E M ¼ 0

Regression models may be

E T ¼ a1ð Þ þ b1ð Þ E Mð Þ þ b2ð Þ E Ið ÞE M ¼ a2ð Þ þ b3ð Þ E Tð Þ þ b4ð Þ E Ið ÞE I ¼ a3ð Þ þ b5ð Þ E Tð Þ þ b6ð Þ E Mð Þ;

where a1, a2, a3 are regression constants, and b1, b2, b3, b4,

b5, b6 are regression coefficients.

Finally this research explores and tests the mechanism

about ‘‘how to assess and develop’’ future generation of eth-

ically effective leadership. New advances in technology and

globalization have enabled many of us to lead human resource

dispersed throughout the globe at any time and any place.

These advances have inspired leaders to resort to mixed reality

ethically effective leadership comprising of (a) conventional

or face to face ethically effective leadership where leaders and

followers, etc., interact face to face with each other; (b) virtual

ethically effective leadership where leaders and followers,

etc., interact virtually with each other via internet, mobile

phones, land lines, wireless sets, radio, television, face book,

you tube, and secured networks, etc.; (c) robotic ethically

effective leadership where leaders and followers, etc., use

robot–robot systems and human–robot systems to interact

with each other; and (d) mixed reality ethically effective

leadership where leaders and followers, etc., interact with

each other via any mix of above mentioned three modes.

Leadership practices and principles required for mixed

reality ethically effective leadership may or may not be

entirely different from those for each of conventional eth-

ically effective leadership, virtual ethically effective lead-

ership or even robotic ethically effective leadership and

vice versa. So it is imperative to explore each of the con-

ventional, virtual, and robotic modes of ethically effective

leadership in its entirety and there after explore mixed

reality ethically effective leadership. This research focuses

on this vital exploration to overcome leadership challenges.

Furthermore, this research theorizes, designs and tests

mechanism that may lay foundation for mixed reality

leadership development for future generation of workforce

via respondents’ virtual and/or robotic (a) ethically effec-

tive leadership assessment, (b) automatic quantification of

their intrinsic desire for ethically effective leadership

development, (c) automatic quantification of their inherent

potential for ethically effective leadership development,

(d) automatic ethically effective leadership development

training module design, and (e) training module execution.

The mechanism may facilitate online development of next

generation of leaders.

This research may facilitate using web as a means of

connection and collaboration to teach, study and practice

online or otherwise ethically effective leadership devel-

opment. Implications for virtual, robotic, and/or mixed

reality as well as conventional ethically effective leader-

ship development training are also explored.

Methods

Data for this research has been collected through survey in

public sector organization in Pakistan. Respondents are

graduates with minimum of 1 year of professional experi-

ence after graduation. Out of 150 respondents usable

responses are 89. Both male and female respondents took

part in survey but sample is predominantly male. Age of

respondents varies from 25 years to late 50s. Along with

descriptive statistics and reliability analysis, the data is

subjected to one sample t test, one way analysis of variance

ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple

regression analyses. Qualitative research is also conducted

to theorize and explore bases and feasibility of virtual,

robotic, and/or mixed reality ethically effective leadership

along the same lines or different from those of conven-

tional ethically effective leadership.

Results and Discussion

Many significant mean differences, associations, regression

constants as well as coefficients are found. Cronbach alpha

reliability coefficient is 0.82 for overall dataset.

Future of Ethically Effective Leadership 83

123

Respondents’ intrinsic desire and inherent potential to

enhance their ethically effective leadership performances

are calculated in percentages. Respondents’ reported vir-

tual ethically effective leadership, robotic ethically effec-

tive leadership as well as mixed reality ethically effective

leadership to be viable along with conventional ethically

effective leadership. Thus, the research contributes to

theory and practice of ethically effective leadership

assessment and development and provides insights for

conventional, virtual, robotic, and mixed reality ethically

effective leadership.

Mean scores of typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T, maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M, and ideal ethically effective leader-

ship performance E_I are 2.89, 3.18 and 3.46, respectively.

The standard deviations are 0.59, 0.60, and 0.62. The range

is for typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T 3.00 with minimum of 1.00 and maximum of 4.00; for


2.75 with minimum of 1.25 and maximum of 4.00; and for

ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I 3.25

with minimum of 0.75 and maximum of 4.00. The results

are reported in Table 1.

As per ANOVA, there is significant p value of 0.00 for

between groups sum of squares of 11.92 for performance

levels as factor and all ethically effective leadership

performances (typical effective leadership perfor-


formance E_M and ideal ethically effective leadership

performance E_I) as dependent and within groups sum of

squares of 83.60. Between groups mean square of 5.96 and

within groups mean square 0.36. The degrees of freedom

are 2 and F value is 16.47. One way ANOVA clearly shows

E_T, E_M, and E_I to be distinct. The results of ANOVA

are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Significant mean difference of 0.29 between mean of


and mean of typical ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_T; 0.57 between mean of ideal ethically effective

leadership performance E_I and mean of typical ethically

effective leadership performance E_T; and 0.28 between

mean of ideal ethically effective leadership performance

E_I and mean of maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M; with p values of 0.00, 0.00, and 0.00,

respectively, is observed showing that the people desire

their ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I to

be higher than typical ethically effective leadership per-

formance E_T as well as maximal ethically effective

leadership performance E_M.

Mean differences between each pair of ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I, maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M and typical ethi-

cally effective leadership performance E_T as per above

mentioned null hypotheses are calculated and presented in

Table 4.

There is intrinsic desire among respondents to 14 %

enhance their ethically effective leadership performance.

Furthermore, there is existing intrinsic potential among

respondents to 10.03 % enhance their ethically effective

leadership performance. Results are shown in Tables 5.

The significant Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.29 is

between typical ethically effective leadership performance


mance E_M with p value of 0.01 showing that these are

positively and weekly associated with each other. Hence,

those who score high on typical ethically effective lead-

ership performance E_T score high on maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I and vice versa. The

other significant Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.32 is


E_T and ideal ethically effective leadership performance

E_I with p value of 0.01 showing that these are positively

and moderately associated with each other. Hence, those

who score high on typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T score high on ideal ethically effective

leadership performance E_I and vice versa. Correlation

coefficients among typical ethically effective leadership per-

formance E_T, maximal ethically effective leadership per-

formance E_M, and ideal ethically effective leadership

Table 1 Descriptive statistics about ethically effective leadership

performance

S. No. Current findings from

Pakistan by self (N = 89)

Mean SD Range

1 E_T 2.89 0.60 3.00

2 E_M 3.18 0.59 2.75

3 E_I 3.46 0.62 3.25

All values rounded to nearest 2 dp

E_T typical ethically effective leadership performance, E_M maximal

ethically effective leadership performance, E_I ideal ethically effec-

tive leadership performance

Table 2 ANOVA-(factor: performance levels), [dependent list = all

ethically effective leadership performances (E_I,E_M,E_T)] ANOVA

all Es

Sum of squares df Mean

square

F Sig.

Between groups 11.92 2 5.96 16.47 0.00

Within groups 83.60 231 0.36

Total 95.52 233

Values rounded to 2dp




84 C. I. Sarwar

123

performance E_I as per above mentioned Null Hypotheses

are calculated and presented in Table 6.

Regression models for each of typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T, maximal ethically effective

leadership performance E_M, and ideal ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_I as dependent variable and

the other two as independent variables as per above mentioned

null hypotheses are developed and presented in Table 7.

For regression model E_T = 1.08 ? 0.25 (E_M) ? 0.28

(E_I) the regression coefficients of maximal ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_M and ideal ethically effective

leadership performance E_I are significant with p values of

0.03 and 0.02 showing that variance in maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M as well as ideal

ethically effective leadership performance E_I explain vari-

ance in typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T. For regression model of typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T as dependent variable, value of R

is 0.473; value of R2 is 0.224; and value of adjusted R2 is 0.190.

Therefore, the significant regression model for typical ethi-

cally effective leadership performance E_T is given by

E T ¼ 1:08þ 0:25 E Mð Þ þ 0:28 E Ið Þ

Above model shows that for one unit increase in


the value of typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T will increase by 0.25 and for one unit

increase in ideal ethically effective leadership performance

E_I the value of typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T will increase by 0.28. A value of 1.08 of

typical ethically effective leadership performance E_T is

still unexplainable by even maximal ethically effective

leadership performance E_M as well as ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I for which there may

be some other predictors.

Table 3 ANOVA-(factor: performance levels), [dependent list = all ethically effective leadership performances (E_I, E_M, E_T)] ANOVA:

post hoc tests: multiple comparisons: LSD

Performance level (I) Performance level (J) Mean difference (I - J) SE Sig. 95 % Confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

Ideal performance Typical performance 0.57* 0.10 0.00 0.37 0.76

Maximal performance 0.28* 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.47

Typical performance Ideal performance -0.57* 0.10 0.00 -0.76 -0.37

Maximal performance -0.29* 0.10 0.00 -0.48 -0.10

Maximal performance Ideal performance -0.28* 0.10 0.00 -0.47 -0.09

Typical performance 0.29* 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.48

E_T typical ethically effective leadership performance, E_M maximal ethically effective leadership performance, E_I ideal ethically effective

leadership performance

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level, all values rounded to 2 dp

Table 4 One sample statistics

(N, mean, standard deviation,

standard error of mean): E_T,

E_M, E_I

p value 0.00 means less than

0.05, all values rounded to 2 dp

E_T typical ethically effective

leadership performance, E_Mmaximal ethically effective

leadership performance, E_Iideal ethically effective

leadership performance

t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

difference

95 % Confidence interval

of the difference

Lower Upper

Test value = mean of E_I = 3.46

E_M -4.42 85 0.00 -0.28 -0.40 -0.15

E_T -8.08 73 0.00 -0.57 -0.71 -0.43

Test value = mean of E_M = 3.18

E_T -4.11 73 0.00 -0.29 -0.43 -0.15

E_I 3.90 73 0.00 0.28 0.14 0.42

Test value = mean of E_T = 2.89

E_M 4.56 85 0.00 0.29 0.16 0.41

E_I 7.92 73 0.00 0.57 0.42 0.71

Table 5 Respondents’ intrinsic desire and inherent potential to

enhance their ethically effective leadership performance

Respondents’ intrinsic desire to enhance their ethically

effective leadership performance

14.00 %

Respondents’ inherent potential to enhance their ethically

effective leadership performance

10.03 %


123

For regression model E_M = 2.28 ? 0.27 (E_T) ?

0.06 (E_I) the regression coefficient of ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I is not significant with

p value of 0.63, whereas the regression coefficient of typ-

ical ethically effective leadership performance E_T is

significant with p value of 0.03; showing that variance in

ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I does

not explain variance in maximal ethically effective lead-

ership performance E_M. Hence, regression is re-per-

formed by taking only typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T as independent variable. Now, the p

value of regression coefficient of typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T and regression constant of

2.41 comes out to be 0.01 and 0.00, respectively. For

regression model of maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M as dependent variable, value of R is

0.409; value of R2 is 0.168; and value of adjusted R2 is

0.119. The significant regression model for maximal ethi-

cally effective leadership performance E_M is given by;

E M ¼ 22:41þ 02:30 E Tð Þ

Above model shows that variation in maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M is explainable

by variation in typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T, but, there are some other predictors

too as regression constant is significant.

For regression model E_I = 2.37 ? 0.06 (E_M) ? 0.30

(E_T) the regression coefficient of maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M is not significant

with p value of 0.63 whereas the regression coefficient of


significant with p value of 0.02 showing that variance in


does not explain variance in ideal ethically effective

leadership performance E_I. Hence, regression is re-per-

formed by taking only typical ethically effective leadership

performance E_T as independent variable. Now, the p

value of regression coefficient of typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T and regression constant of

2.52 comes out to be 0.01 and 0.00, respectively. For

regression model of ideal ethically effective leadership

performance E_I as dependent variable, value of R is

0.664; value of R2 is 0.442; and value of adjusted R2 is

0.400. Therefore, the significant regression model for ideal

ethically effective leadership performance E_I is given by;

EI ¼ 2:52þ 0:32ðETÞ

The above model shows that for one unit increase in

typical ethically effective leadership performance E_T the

value of ideal ethically effective leadership performance

E_I will increase by 0.32. A value of 2.52 of ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I is still unexplainable

Table 6 Pearson correlation: significance and N (E_T and E_M, E_T

and E_I, E_M, and E_I)

E_M E_T E_I

E_M

Pearson correlation 1 0.29* 0.14

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01 0.22

N 86 73 73

E_T

Pearson correlation 1 0.32**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01

N 74

E_I

Pearson correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N 1

p value 0.00 means less than 0.05, all values rounded to 2 dp




* Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 7 Regression model for E_T, E_M, and E_I

Model Unstandardized

coefficients

Standardized

coefficients

t Sig.

B SE b

Dependent variable: E_M

1 (Constant) 2.28 0.41 5.57 0.00

E_T 0.25 0.11 0.27 2.28 0.03

E_I 0.05 0.11 0.06 .49 0.63

Dependent variable: E_M

1 (Constant) 2.41 0.31 7.87 .00

E_T 0.27 0.10 0.29 2.58 .01

Dependent variable: E_I

1 (Constant) 2.37 0.47 5.02 .00

E_M 0.07 0.13 0.06 .49 .63

E_T 0.31 0.12 0.30 2.49 .02

Dependent variable: E_I

1 (Constant) 2.52 0.34 7.49 .00

E_T .32 0.11 0.32 2.83 .01

Dependent variable: E_T

1 (Constant) 1.08 0.50 2.17 .033

E_M .28 0.12 0.25 2.28 .03

E_I .27 0.11 0.28 2.49 .02

p value 0.00 means less than 0.05, all values rounded to 2 dp




86 C. I. Sarwar

123

by even typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T and for this value there may be some other predictors.

Hence, this research explores;

(a) Extent of variance in typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T explainable by variance

in maximal ethically effective leadership performance

E_M and ideal ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_I to be given by E_T = 1.08 ? 0.25

(E_M) ? 0.28 (E_I)

(b) Extent of variance in maximal ethically effective

leadership performance E_M explainable by variance

in typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T and ideal ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_I to be given by E_M = 2.41 ? 0.30 (E_T)

(c) Extent of variance in ideal ethically effective leader-

ship performance E_I explainable by variance in

typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T and maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M to be given by E_I = 2.52 ?

0.32 (E_T)

Managerial Implications and Directions

for Future Research

Ethically effective leadership performance for each

respondent is assessed at three levels of data collection

(i.e., typical, maximal, and ideal ethically effective lead-

ership performances) adding precision to the assessment of

ethically effective leadership performance for the research

and practicing community. Typical ethically effective leader-

ship performance E_T, maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M and ideal ethically effective leadership

performance E_I score is 2.89, 3.18, and 3.46, respectively.

House et al. (2004) explore some leadership aspects for two

levels of data collection via (a) practices (resembling typ-

ical performance) as well as (b) values (resembling ideal

performance) but this research goes one step ahead of

House et al. (2004) by exploring ethically effective lead-

ership performance at three levels of data collection via

typical, maximal, and ideal ethically effective leadership

performance. Avolio and Bass (2004) compile findings on

effectiveness at only one performance level (resembling

typical ethically effective leadership performance E_T).

This article contributes by incorporating the concept of

typical, maximal, and ideal performance into the adapted

construct of effectiveness and making three assess-

ments from each respondent about their ethically effective

leadership performance adding precision to leadership

assessment.

The findings may inspire the researchers to undertake

future research at three levels of data collection

(performance levels via typical, maximal, and ideal per-

formance) to better understand the attribution of ethically

effective leadership performance or any other construct for

example; (a) other leadership aspects such as idealized

influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior),

intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individ-

ual consideration, contingent reward, management-by-

exception (active), management-by-exception (passive),

laissez-faire (b) outcomes such as extra effort, satisfaction

and (c) work related values such as power distance,

uncertainty avoidance, masculinity–femininity, long term–

short term orientation, and individualism–collectivism at

three performance levels. Hence, the article opens new

avenues for research on leadership styles and outcomes as

defined by Avolio and Bass (2004), work related values as

defined by Hofstede (1991) and Hofstede et al. (2008) and

human performance as defined by Motowidlo et al. (1997).

This article contributes by introducing three levels of

data collection (via typical, maximal, and ideal perfor-

mance) from each respondent for attribution of their ethi-

cally effective leadership performance. So far, most of the

research focuses on single level of data collection (Avolio

and Bass, 2004; Hofstede 1984) but few researchers for

example House et al. (2004) explore some leadership

aspects at two levels of data collection. Hence, this paper

introduces three levels of data collection adding precision

to the assessment for future research. Furthermore, for

future research, the findings of this research also provide

new insights for work done by Adler (2002), Hofstede and

Hofstede (2005), Mintzberg and Gosling (2003), and

Turnbull (2009).

The findings clearly depict that there is significant mean

difference of 0.29 between mean of maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M and mean of typical

ethically effective leadership performance E_T; 0.57

between mean of ideal ethically effective leadership per-

formance E_I and mean of typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T; and 0.28 between mean of

ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I and

mean of maximal ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_M; with p values of 0.00, 0.00, and 0.00,

respectively, is observed showing that the people desire

their ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I to

be significantly higher than their typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T as well as their maximal

ethically effective leadership performance E_M.

There is intrinsic desire among respondents to 14 %

enhance their ethically effective leadership performance.

Furthermore, there is existing inherent potential among

respondents to 10.03 % enhance their ethically effective

leadership performance. Thus, the people may desire the

same or otherwise for other attributes (at three perfor-

mance levels) for example (a) other leadership aspects


123

(b) outcomes and (c) work related values. Hence, the article

opens new avenues for research on leadership styles and

outcomes as defined by Avolio and Bass (2004), work

related values as defined by Hofstede (1991) and Hofstede

et al. (2008) and human performance as defined by

Motowidlo et al. (1997).

Significant Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.29 is



mance and 0.32 between typical ethically effective lead-

ership performance and ideal ethically effective leadership

performance E_I with p values of 0.01 and 0.01, respec-

tively, showing that these are positively and weekly or

moderately associated with each other. Hence, those who

score high on typical ethically effective leadership per-

formance E_T score high on maximal ethically effective

leadership performance as well as ideal ethically effective

leadership performance E_I and vice versa. The same or

otherwise kind of associations may be observed for other

attributes (at three performance levels) for example

(a) other leadership aspects (b) outcomes and (c) work

related values.

This research explores;

(a) Extent of variance in typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T explainable by variance

in maximal ethically effective leadership performance

E_M and ideal ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_I to be given by E_T = 1.08 ? 0.25

(E_M) ? 0.28 (E_I)

(b) Extent of variance in maximal ethically effective

leadership performance E_M explainable by variance

in typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T and ideal ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_I to be given by E_M = 2.41 ? 0.30 (E_T)

(c) Extent of variance in ideal ethically effective leader-

ship performance E_I explainable by variance in

typical ethically effective leadership performance

E_T and maximal ethically effective leadership

performance E_M to be given by E_I = 2.52 ?

0.32 (E_T)

The above findings show that researchers have to look

for other variables to fully explain variance in typical

ethically effective leadership performance E_T, maximal

ethically effective leadership performance E_M or ideal

ethically effective leadership performance E_I as all

regression constants in models of typical ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_T, maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M and ideal ethically

effective leadership performance E_I are significant. Fur-

thermore, typical ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_T significantly explains variance in maximal

ethically effective leadership performance E_M as well as

ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I and

vice versa, opening new avenues of research and applica-

tion for researchers, practitioners, and trainers to introduce

different effective training interventions to alter any of



or ideal ethically effective leadership performance E_I by

altering other two of these three variables or other variables

for aligning the leaders’ ethically effective leadership

performance with the desired ethically effective leadership

performance for the organization or team as a whole.

The researcher concludes that the selected leaders

report their ideal ethically effective leadership perfor-

mance E_I to be higher than their typical ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_T and maximal ethically

effective leadership performance E_M depicting signifi-

cant intrinsic desire for 14 % enhancing their ethically

effective leadership performance. Furthermore, there is

significant existing inherent potential among respondents

for 10.03 % enhancement of their ethically effective

leadership performance. Significant Pearson correlation

coefficient of 0.29 is between typical ethically effective

leadership performance E_T and maximal ethically

effective leadership performance and 0.32 between typical

ethically effective leadership performance and ideal ethi-

cally effective leadership performance E_I showing that

these are positively and weekly or moderately associated

with each other. Regression constants for regression

models for typical ethically effective leadership perfor-


formance E_M and ideal ethically effective leadership

performance E_I are significant depicting that the

researchers have to look for other variables (such as ide-

alized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behav-

ior), intellectual stimulation, individual consideration,

contingent reward, management-by-exception (active),

management-by-exception (passive), laissez-faire, etc.) to

fully explain variance in typical ethically effective lead-

ership performance E_T, maximal ethically effective

leadership performance E_M and ideal ethically effective

leadership performance E_I. Regression coefficient of


significant in model for maximal ethically effective lead-

ership performance E_M as well as ideal ethically effec-

tive leadership performance E_I and vice versa. So, this

article suggests that training strategies may be feasible to

alter respondents’ typical ethically effective leadership

performance and maximal ethically effective leadership

performance in such a way as to bring it closer to their

ideal ethically effective leadership performance but for

this researchers have to look for other variables too.

88 C. I. Sarwar

123

Limitations

This research is based on self-administered questionnaires

which may produce self-report bias. However, the preci-

sion of response is increased by asking the respondents to

identify the key words in each item, writing in their own

words the message the respondents get from each item and

then score each item. So, every respondent reads each item

at least thrice increasing the respondent’s comprehension

of the questionnaire and adding to the precision of

response. In addition to this, intrinsic desire and existing

inherent potential among respondents to enhance their

ethically effective leadership performance cannot be

assessed without self-report measures. In future, experi-

mental research may be undertaken to augment and verify

self reported findings, but ideal ethically effective leader-

ship performance may still have to be based on self-report

measures.

References

Adler, N. (2002). Global managers: No longer men alone. Interna-tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(5),

743–760. doi:10.1080/09585190210125895.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1998). You can drag a horse to water but

you can’t make it drink unless it is thirsty. Journal of Leadershipand Organizational Studies, 5(1), 4–17. doi:10.1177/107179199

800500102.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadershipquestionnaire: Manual and sampler set. Redwood City, CA:

Mind Garden, Inc.

Barnes, C. M., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Typical performance,

maximal performance, and performance variability: Explaining

our understanding of how organizations value performance.

Human Performance, 20(3), 259–274. doi:10.1080/0895928070

1333289.

Dubois, C. L. Z., Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1993).

Further exploration of typical and maximum performance

criteria: Definitional issues, prediction, and white black differ-

ences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 205–211. doi:10.1037/

0021-9010.78.2.205.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differ-ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publishing.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations. London: McGraw

Hill Book Co.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations:Software of the mind. NewYork: McGraw Hill.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M., & Vinken, H. (2008).

Values survey module 2008 manual. Maastricht: Institute for

Research on Intercultural Cooperation.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V.

(Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: TheGLOBE study of 62 societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Klehe, U. C., & Latham, G. P. (2006). What would you do—really or

ideally? Constructs underlying the behavioral description inter-

view and the situational interview in predicting typical versus

maximum performance. Human Performance, 19, 357–382.

doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1904_3.

Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. (2003, November 1). Five minds of a

manager. Harvard Business Review.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of

individual differences in task and contextual performance.

Human Performance, 10, 71–83.

Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between

measures of typical and maximum job performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 73, 482–486. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.

3.482.

Turnbull, S. (2009). Worldly leadership for a global world in global

leadership: Portraits of the past, visions for the future. In

M. Harvey & J. A. Danelo Barbour (Eds.), James McGregorburns academy of leadership (pp. 82–94). MD: College Park.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190210125895

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179199800500102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179199800500102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959280701333289

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959280701333289

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.205

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.205

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1904_3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.482

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.482

future of ethically effective leadership

Documents