Implementing A Dynamic 1

Running head: IMPLEMENTING A DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

Implementing a Dynamic Leadership Program: A Moral Construct

for Adding Cultural Value

B. Tim Lowder
 Implementing A Dynamic 2

Abstract

The dynamic leader must have a basic understanding of their organization’s affirmative

moral obligation and operate from a humanistic paradigmatic perspective. Every organization

has a positive moral obligation to do “good” for its stakeholders and not harm them in any way.

Based upon this premise, it can be argued that the corporation has a moral obligation to do

“good” for its employees who are non-owner stakeholder. Hence, the dynamic leader must place

significant emphasis on moral and ethical factors in order to enhance cultural values. The

cultural value creation has the potential to produce positive outcomes for all organizational

stakeholders including employees, shareholders, suppliers, customers, communities, and governments.

This paper will present a concise model for implementing a paradigm shifting model that focuses

on enhancing and developing cultural values.

 Implementing A Dynamic 3

Implementing a Dynamic Leadership Program: A Moral Construct

for Adding Cultural Value

The dynamic leader must have a basic understanding of their organization’s affirmative

moral obligation and operate from a humanistic paradigmatic perspective (Covey, 1991; Manz &

Sims, 1990; March, 1996; Tichy & McGill, 2003; Trevino, 1986). Every organization has a

positive moral obligation to do “good” for its stakeholders and not harm them in any way

(Freeman, 1994). Based upon this premise, it can be argued that the corporation has a moral

obligation to do “good” for its employees who are non-owner stakeholders (Greenwood, 2002).

Hence, the dynamic leader must place significant emphasis on moral and ethical factors in order

to enhance cultural values.(Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Connolly & Myers, 2003;

Covey, 1991; Freeman, 1994; Greenwood, 2002; Manz & Sims, 1990). The cultural value

creation has the potential to produce positive outcomes for all organizational stakeholders

including employees, shareholders, suppliers, customers, communities, and governments. This paper

will present a concise model for implementing a paradigm shifting model that focuses on

enhancing and developing cultural values.

Humanistic Leadership Paradigm

The dynamic leader’s humanistic decision making process must be aligned with a Kantian

Capitalism perspective in which no individual, including employees of a company, should be used as a

means to an end (Greenfield, 2004; Kant, 1996; Lea, 2004; McCormick, 2006; Smith, 2004). Rawles

explains that “individuals are a self-originating source of valid claims” and definitely matter from a moral

and ethical perspective (Rawls, 1972) (p. 83). In other words, neither the dynamic leaders nor their

organizations have a right to regard people as a means to an ends without their full and free consent

(Chakraborty et al., 2004; Covey, 1991; Greenwood, 2002; Manz & Sims, 1990; Organization &

management theory, 2005; Salopek, 2004). An organization must be managed for the benefit of all
 Implementing A Dynamic 4

stakeholders including employees and consequently, all stakeholders have a legitimate right to participate

in organizational decision making that has an impact on their well being (Chakraborty et al., 2004;

Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Kaler, 2003; Lea, 2004; Stainer, 2004; Vaghefi & Huellmantel, 1998)

Decision-making Alignment

The issue that must be addressed involves management’s role in developing dynamic leadership

model is a willingness to create a shift in the current decision-making paradigm. Most corporate leaders

in the United States either completely fail to recognize employee’s as organizational stakeholders and/or

refuse to incorporate its premises into the decision-making process (Bowen, 2002; Chakraborty et al.,

2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Marques, 2005; Mohamed, Wisnieski, Askar, & Syed,

2004; Smith, 2004; Stainer, 2004; Trevino, 1986; Whitmore, 2004). This lack of employee significance

is legitimate and must be addressed before a corporate paradigm shift can successfully take place. For

this reason, the dynamic leader must focus on realigning the organizational paradigms to acknowledge the

advantages of heightened employee participation and involvement in organizational decision making.

Cultural Alignment

In order for a paradigm shift to happen, leaders must begin to understand how each

employee’s cultural perception impacts their performance and productivity. Only then will

leaders be able to develop and implement strategies that generate the characteristics of dynamic

leadership. This cultural shift can only happen by acknowledging the importance of stakeholder

ethics and allowing employees to actively participate in the decision making process. To

accomplish this task, dynamic leaders must be willing to adopt a broader definition of what their

organization’s existence represents. Dynamic leaders understand that the cultural paradigm shift

must encompass all aspects of the organization as though it is a living, breathing, organic entity

which is often called culture (Argyris, 1976; W. G. Bennis, 2004; Bertalanffy, 1972; Black,

2002; van Dyck, Frese, Baer, & Sonnentag, 2005; Watters, 2006; Weick, 1987; Whitmore,
 Implementing A Dynamic 5

2004). Consequently, dynamic leaders must address questions that include what their

organizations do, how it functions, why it exists, and how all the major stakeholders are

impacted by its actions? By answering these questions truthfully dynamic leaders begin to

discover the significance of organizational culture and how to use organizational culture to instill

positive values about the corporate mission or vision into its workforce. It is these positive

values and perceptions that positively impact employee attitudes and performance (Chalofsky,

2003; Marques, 2005; Mohamed et al., 2004; Salopek, 2004; Whitmore, 2004).

The organization’s dynamic leaders impact the organizational culture through their

actions, decision making, and attitudes which in turn, positively enhances employee’s

perceptions and values causing them to grow and thrive (Argyris, 1976; W. Bennis, 2004a,

2004b, 2006a, 2006b; Covey, 1991; B. C. Crosby, 1999; P. B. Crosby, 1996; Manz & Sims,

1990). What this means is that dynamic leadership must integrate the fruits of cultural

development into the organization’s workforce include virtuous behavior and characteristics like

trust, honesty, caring, ethics, honor, and meaning (Ahmed & Machold, 2004; Chakraborty et al.,

2004; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Lea, 2004; Tauber, 2005; Whetstone, 2003) . As dynamic leaders

“walk the talk” of this humanistic virtue-driven program, each employee’s commitment and

focus on these same virtues is heightened the positive outcomes including greater job

satisfaction, better attendance rates, higher productivity levels, and better morale will begin to

flourish (Beck, 2006; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Covey, 1991; Garcia-Zamor,

2003; Greenfield, 2004; Hamel, 2006; LaRue, 2006; Marques, 2005; Organization &

management theory, 2005; Whitmore, 2004).

 Implementing A Dynamic 6

Leadership Alignment

The key success factor to implementing a construct of stakeholder ethics into the

organizational culture is to attain a consensus of all management. The dynamic leader’s efforts

must consistently bolster the organization’s ethical and principle-oriented values throughout the

company (Beck, 2006; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Covey, 1991; Garcia-Zamor,

2003; Greenfield, 2004; Hamel, 2006; LaRue, 2006; Manz & Sims, 1990; Marques, 2005;

Morrison, Rha, & Helfman, 2003; Organization & management theory, 2005). These efforts

must be based upon leader’s positive actions which include incorporating virtues, ethics, values,

and principles into the corporate vision, strategies, and standard operating procedures (Ahmed &

Machold, 2004; Tauber, 2005; Whetstone, 2003). In other words, management must “walk the

talk” and demonstrate their commitment to heightened employee involvement and participation

in their day-to-day activities and instill these values into the employee’s sphere of influence (W.

Bennis, 2004a, 2006a; W. G. Bennis, 2006; Covey, 1991; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Manz & Sims,

1990; Marques, 2005; Spangenberg & Theron, 2005; Whetstone, 2003).

Stakeholder Ethics Model

The stakeholder ethics model to be used in the construct is very straight forward and provides an

excellent framework for dynamic leaders to implement into organization’s culture. This model is called

the “Six Pillars of Character” and has been prepared by the Josephson Institute of Ethics ("The six pillars

of character," 2005). The ethical foundation of “The Six Pillars of Character” is firmly grounded in

Kantian and virtue ethical theory and centers on individual duties and character virtues as a core

foundation (Chakraborty et al., 2004; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Kaler, 2003; Stewart, 2002; Verschoor, 2004;

Whitmore, 2004). These character virtues include trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness,

caring, and citizenship ("The six pillars of character," 2005).

 Implementing A Dynamic 7

The first pillar trustworthiness is described as the most complicated trait of the six pillars.

Trustworthiness involves respect, honesty, truthfulness, sincerity, candor, good conduct. integrity,

reliability, and loyalty ("The six pillars of character," 2005). The second pillar is respect and entails

character traits including civility, courtesy, decency, dignity, autonomy, tolerance, and acceptance ("The

six pillars of character," 2005). The third pillar is responsibility and involves accountability, diligence,

perseverance, continuous improvement, and self-restraint ("The six pillars of character," 2005). The

fourth pillar is fairness and includes open and impartial processes, impartiality of judgments, and equity

("The six pillars of character," 2005). The fifth pillar is caring and involves humanity, love, and kindness

("The six pillars of character," 2005). The sixth and last pillar is citizenship and involves knowing and

obeying the law, volunteering for civic duties, and returning goodwill to the community ("The six pillars

of character," 2005).

These pillars of character provide an excellent framework for dynamic leaders to use for cultural

development. All decisions must be filtered through this framework to ensure that it is based upon sound

ethical premises. Additionally, this framework for ethical decision making will enhance the level of each

individual employee’s perceptions, participation, and commitment to the organization’s mission and

values.

Implementation

How do dynamic leaders implement stakeholder ethics within the culture of a spiritual workplace

environment? The answer to this question lies in cultural shift from old paradigms to new ways of

thinking about organizational culture. The alignment process toward implementing a cultural shift

involves a two step program that is originally implemented by the organization’s leadership.

The first step in this alignment is the development of a viable corporate value statement that

exemplifies both the importance and significance of all organizational stakeholders. This value statement

must address the organization’s values and desired outcomes as they specifically relate to employees,

shareholders, suppliers, customers, communities, and governments (Beauchamp & Bowie, 2004; W.

Bennis, 2004a; Bennis, 2005a, 2005b; W. Bennis, 2006a, 2006b; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Covey, 1991;
 Implementing A Dynamic 8

Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Kaler, 2003; Lea, 2004; Manz & Sims, 1990; Stainer, 2004; Stewart, 2002;

Verschoor, 2004; Whitmore, 2004). The key to successful implementation of the value statement is

getting employee stakeholders involved early in the process to demonstrate their value (Freeman, 1994;

Greenwood, 2002). Employee participation is absolutely essential to the program’s success (Chakraborty

et al., 2004; Marques, 2005; Mohamed et al., 2004). Moreover, this first step in the implementation

process has very important overtones because it represents a new comprehensive synergy between

employees, management, and most importantly, the organizations reason for existence. This process

allows all organizational stakeholders to determine that the program is started on a cooperative basis and

each person has their chance to impact its formation. Of greater importance is the fact that the first step

encompasses all stakeholders’ participation and represents the birth of the organization’s spirituality.

Step two begins when the employee teams are assigned the responsibility for developing

platforms that address the organization’s statement of virtues, ethics, and principles by which the

organization will conduct business. Interwoven within the meaning and context of these platforms is the

organization’s value statement that was previously established in step one. The corporate value statement

that was established in step one guides the corporate team members toward developing platforms that aid

in the day-to-day operations and decision-making processes.

Summary

Leadership must understand that this is a perpetual program that entails a long-term commitment

to its continued and consistent follow through. The program is designed to heighten and enhance cultural

development by increasing each employee’s level of participation and involvement through participation

and input into daily decision making. The wonderful news is that most organizations already use

organizational teams that perform various functions. These existing teams can easily be adapted to the

new tasks. In summary, the key to success of the dynamic leadership program is a solid, long-term

management commitment to cultural enhancement and development through employee involvement and

participation.
Implementing A Dynamic 9
 [First Authors Last Name] Page 10

References

Ahmed, P. K., & Machold, S. (2004). The Quality and Ethics Connection: Toward Virtuous

Organizations

The Quality and Ethics Connection: Toward Virtuous Organizations. Total Quality Management

& Business Excellence, 15(4), 527-545.

Argyris, C. (1976). Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo. Organizational

Dynamics, 4(3), 29-43.

Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (2004). Ethical Theory and Business (Seventh ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Beck, N. (2006). Rationality and institutionalized expectations: The development of an

organizational set of rules. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 58(3), 279-300.

Bennis, W. (2004a). Courageous Leaders. Executive Excellence, 21(10), 17-17.

Bennis, W. (2004b). Leadership Paradox. CIO Insight(44), 35-36.

Bennis, W. (2005a). Creativity for the Long Haul. CIO Insight(54), 31-32.

Bennis, W. (2005b). Seven Stages of Leadership. Leadership Excellence, 22(2), 3-4.

Bennis, W. (2006a). Authentic Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 23(8), 3-4.

Bennis, W. (2006b). Why Lead? Leadership Excellence, 23(10), 4-5.

Bennis, W. G. (2004). The Seven Ages of the Leader. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 46-53.

Bennis, W. G. (2006). Leading for the Long Run. Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 23-24.

Bertalanffy, L. v. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of

Management Journal, 15(4), 407.

Black, J. (2002). The cultural key to net gains. Business Week Online, [Link].
 [First Authors Last Name] Page 11

Bowen, S. A. (2002). Elite executives in issues management: The role of ethical paradigms in

decision making. Journal of Public Affairs (Wiley), 2(4), 270.

Chakraborty, S. K., Kurien, V., Singh, J., Athreya, M., Maira, A., Aga, A., et al. (2004).

Management paradigms beyond profit maximization. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision

Makers, 29(3), 97-117.

Chalofsky, N. (2003). Meaningful work. T+D, 57(12), 52-58.

Connolly, K. M., & Myers, J. E. (2003). Wellness and mattering: The role of holistic factors in

job satisfaction. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40(4), 152-160.

Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Summit Books.

Crosby, B. C. (1999). Leadership for global citizenship : building transnational community.

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Crosby, P. B. (1996). The absolutes of leadership. Johannesburg ; San Diego: Pfeiffer &

Company.

Freeman, R. E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-

421.

Garcia-Zamor, J.-C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public

Administration Review, 63(3), 355-363.

Greenfield, W. M. (2004). Attention to people and principles is key to corporate governance and

ethics. Employment Relations Today, 30(4), 1.

Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of

Business Ethics, 36(3), 261.

Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business

Review, 84(2), 72-84.

 [First Authors Last Name] Page 12

Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 71.

Kant, I. (1996). The metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

LaRue, B. (2006). Developing Action Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 23(10), 9-9.

Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 201.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1990). Dynamic leadership. New York: Berkley.

March, J. G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 41(2), 278-287.

Marques, J. (2005). Yearning for a more spiritual workplace. Journal of American Academy of

Business, Cambridge, 7(1), 149-153.

McCormick, M. (2006). The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804),

Metaphysics. Retrieved June 17, 2006, from [Link]

Mohamed, A. A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, M., & Syed, I. (2004). Towards a theory of spirituality in

the workplace. Competitiveness Review, 14(1/2), 102-107.

Morrison, J. L., Rha, J., & Helfman, A. (2003). Learning Awareness, Student Engagement, and

Change: A Transformation in Leadership Development. Journal of Education for

Business, 79(1), 11-17.

Organization & management theory. (2005). Paper presented at the Academy of Management

Proceedings.

Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Salopek, J. J. (2004). Engaging mind, body, and spirit at work. T+D, 58(11), 17-19.
 [First Authors Last Name] Page 13

The six pillars of character. (2005). Resources: Making Ethical Decisions Retrieved April 29,

2006, 2006, from [Link]

Smith, J. D. (2004). A précis of a communicative theory of the firm. Business Ethics, 13(4), 317.

Spangenberg, H., & Theron, C. C. (2005). Promoting ethical follower behaviour through

leadership of ethics: The development of the ethical leadership inventory (ELI). South

African Journal of Business Management, 36(2), 1-18.

Stainer, L. (2004). Ethical dimensions of management decision-making. Strategic Change, 13(6),

333.

Stewart, W. H. (2002). How work gains meaning in contractual time: A narrative model for

reconstructing the work ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 65.

Tauber, A. I. (2005). Thoreau's living ethics: Walden and the pursuit of virtue. Environmental

Ethics, 27(4), 441-444.

Tichy, N. M., & McGill, A. R. (2003). The ethical challenge: How to lead with unyielding

integrity (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist

model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601.

Vaghefi, M. R., & Huellmantel, A. B. (1998). Strategic leadership at General Electric. Long

Range Planning, 31(2), 280.

van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational Error Management

Culture and Its Impact on Performance: A Two-Study Replication. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(6), 1228-1240.

Verschoor, C. C. (2004). Integrity is a strategy for performance. Strategic Finance, 86(1), 15.

Watters, K. (2006). Thinking about leadership

 [First Authors Last Name] Page 14

Thinking about leadership. Adults Learning, 18(3), 18-19.

Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California

Management Review, 29(2), 112.

Whetstone, J. T. (2003). The Language of Managerial Excellence: Virtues as Understood and

Applied. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 343.

Whitmore, J. (2004). Something really has to change: Change management as an imperative

rather than a topic. Journal of Change Management, 4(1), 5-14.