A Responsible Leadership Dimensional Framework Model

Abstract

During the last years, leaders in the business world face uncertainty regarding how their decision and actions are considered responsible. While numerous papers have discussed the Responsible Leadership (RL) concept, a few models presented the concept. Still, the existing contributions to RL do not present a clear conceptual framework from the point of view of theoretical-practical. This paper aims to present a theoretical conceptual, logical, and dimensional framework for the RL phenomenon debates in the literature. The methodology used a qualitative approach applying focuses group discussion with 45 leaders in 20 factories and companies located in Egypt in different industries. Also, this paper reviews various recent literature and previous models for discussing the RL concept. The suggested model covering this area is new and innovative based on four existing models and presents a new definition of the RL phenomenon.

Responsible leadership and its place in the leadership domain: A meaning‐based systematic review

“…This definition broadened the view of RL from the conventional leader-subordinate relationship to a leader-stakeholder relationship (Waldman & Siegel, 2008). However, there is still some discrepancy regarding a unified meaning of RL (Fry & Egel, 2021;Shaaban, 2021;Waldman et al, 2020). Doh and Stumpf (2005, p. 71) described the defining focus of RL as: "it depends," because the field is fluid and it reflects the complexity of the related challenges, questions, and issues.…”

“…This view contradicts David Waldman's definition of responsibility as "focusing on the importance of nonfinancial stakeholders and the need to address their concerns, even when it is not financially prudent to do so in the short run" (Siegel, 2015, p. 222). Although progress has been made in conceptualizing RL, current literature lacks a unified definition (Fry & Egel, 2021;MacNeil et al, 2021;Shaaban, 2021;Waldman et al, 2020) and thus a consolidated understanding of its meaning.…”

“…However, from a review of RL literature, Tan (2023, p. 44) contended that “the diversity in its [RL] paradigmatic and conceptual orientations has introduced more confusion and ambiguities into its definition, theoretical development, and conceptual developments … runs the risk of jeopardization the positioning of RL within the larger body of knowledge in leadership studies.” Maak and Pless (2006) defined RL as “a relational and ethical phenomenon, which occurs in social processes of interaction with those who affect or are affected by leadership and have a stake in the purpose and vision of the leadership relationship.” This definition broadened the view of RL from the conventional leader–subordinate relationship to a leader–stakeholder relationship (Waldman & Siegel, 2008). However, there is still some discrepancy regarding a unified meaning of RL (Fry & Egel, 2021; Shaaban, 2021; Waldman et al, 2020). Doh and Stumpf (2005, p. 71) described the defining focus of RL as: “it depends,” because the field is fluid and it reflects the complexity of the related challenges, questions, and issues.…”

“…For example, Siegel (2015) described RL as the moral obligation to use a firm's resources efficiently and defined responsibility in terms of the “manager's fiduciary responsibility to maximize [organizational] profit and shareholder wealth.” This view contradicts David Waldman's definition of responsibility as “focusing on the importance of nonfinancial stakeholders and the need to address their concerns, even when it is not financially prudent to do so in the short run” (Siegel, 2015, p. 222). Although progress has been made in conceptualizing RL, current literature lacks a unified definition (Fry & Egel, 2021; MacNeil et al, 2021; Shaaban, 2021; Waldman et al, 2020) and thus a consolidated understanding of its meaning.…”

“…A clear conceptualization of the meaning of RL as a leadership construct is imperative to provide clarity about its placement in the leadership domain and focus on the expanding research and discourse following the pressure on executives to be accountable and act responsibly (Siegel, 2015; Tsui, 2021; Waldman & Balven, 2015). However, notwithstanding more than 17 years of research on RL, a unified conceptualization of its encompassing meaning still appears to be somewhat lacking (Fry & Egel, 2021; Shaaban, 2021; Tsui, 2021). For instance, Maak and Pless (2006) focused their conceptualization of RL on leaders' accountability to employees, shareholders, and other stakeholders for business, social, and environmental sustainability.…”