The strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business can no longer be ignored. Executives must accept the fact that the moral impact of their leadership presence and behaviors will rarely, if ever, be neutral. In the leadership capacity, executives have great power to shift the ethics mindfulness of organizational members in positive as well as negative directions. Rather than being left to chance, this power to serve as ethics leaders must be used to establish a social context within which positive self-regulation of ethical behavior becomes a clear and compelling organizational norm and in which people act ethically as a matter of routine. This article frames the responsibility for strategic leadership of ethical behavior on three premises: (1) It must be done-a stakeholder analysis of the total costs of ethical failures confirms the urgency for ethics change; (2) It can be done-exemplars show that a compelling majority of an organization's membership can be influenced to make ethical choices; (3) It is sustainable-integrity programs help build and confirm corporate cultures in which principled actions and ethics norms predominate.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present a dispositional model using self‐regulation as a foundation for the strategic leadership of organizational change.Design/methodology/approachThis paper reviews the self‐regulation literature and regulatory‐focus theory in particular, and integrates this literature within the strategic leadership and organizational change literatures to present a dispositional model with propositions about the relationships between these literatures.FindingsStrategic leadership of organizational change should allow for co‐existent states of both continuity and change. Leadership teams should include a mix of individuals with promotion and prevention foci of self‐regulation and should provide for a regulatory fit that cascades throughout the organization.Practical implicationsLeaders should increase their self‐awareness of promotion and prevention styles of self‐regulation and rely on a mix of individuals that increase the chances of valuing and enhancing both continuity and change in their organizations.Originality/valueThis paper integrates the self‐regulation literature and concepts into discussion and theoretical development in the area of leadership and organizational change.

Individualism‐collectivism and power distance are among the dimensions of national culture frequently discussed in the leadership literature and in executive development programmes. Examines cross‐cultural leadership implications of the likely interaction of collectivism and high power distance. Includes a call for more awareness of how collectivism and power distance may together influence workplace behaviour. Suggests that this awareness needs to be incorporated in cross‐cultural leadership training and research agendas.