Untitled

A systematic review of leader credibility: its murky framework needs clarity

“…Those outcomes include the following: performance appraisal acceptance (Gabris and Ihrke 2000 ), believability in a leader’s apology (Basford et al 2014 ), less follower burnout (Gabris and Ihrke 1996 , 2003 ), transformational leadership (Balwant 2016 ; Bolkan and Goodboy 2009 ), innovation (Gabris et al 2001 , 1999 , 2000 ), and motivating leader language (Holmes and Parker 2017 ). Findings also indicate leader credibility outcomes include employee communication interpretations (Harshman and Harshman 1999 ) and societal reputation (Worden 2003b ).…”

“…Negative antecedent: Not meeting expectations Van Zuydam and Metze ( 2018 ) Political leadership Competence, trustworthiness, and caring. Negative antecedent: Not meeting expectations Effective persuading, which is vital in political communication Vlok et al ( 2019 ) Technology innovation leaders Technical ability of leaders to shape opinions Von der Ohe et al ( 2004 ) Employer-employee relations Listening skills, decision-making, allowing freedom to employees to express feelings, tolerating mistakes, and ensuring that employees enjoy prestige Trusting relationships between employers and employees Worden ( 2003b ) A leader with religious and nationalistic values Religious ethics, complemented by a nationalist principle Societal reputation and strategic leadership (effective leadership) Yin et al ( 2019 ) Celebrities as leaders Enhances the persuasion of communication recipients Yoo and Jin ( 2015 ) Asian political leaders Expertise and attractiveness …”

“…Numerous studies identified attributes of effective leaders through a deductive approach–starting with a general idea (effective leadership 3 ) and digging down to identify specifics (the attributes of effective leaders). The studies sought effective leader attributes in various contexts: education (Gale and Bishop 2014 ; Ryan and Tuters 2017 ; Spendlove 2007 ); the medical field (Chaffee and Mills 2001 ; Loh et al 2016 ; Patterson and Krouse 2015 ; Upenieks 2003 ); politics (Van Zuydam and Hendriks 2018 ; Van Zuydam and Metze 2018 ); social resistance (Einwohner 2007 ); government (Paton and Goel 1993 ); and business (Harshman and Harshman 1999 ; Worden 2003b ). These studies’ environments included the following: school administrators in their early years of leadership (Northfield 2014 ), resistance activities in Nazi-occupied Jewish ghettos (Einwohner 2007 ), policing (Grint et al 2017 ), and large/complex organizations (Harshman and Harshman, 1999 ).…”

Care of the Common Good as a Responsibility of Business Leaders. Catholic Social Teaching Perspective

“…This perspective seems to be particularly valuable because it might be recognised as a foundation of contemporary post-industrial capitalism, in which, in accordance with the personalistic criterion, man is treated as an end in himself and never as a means to an end. Business leadership might derive from different philosophical and ethical notions as well as different religions systems, each of which proposes a specific model of understanding business and leadership (Weber 1905;Han 2013;Marbun 2013;Chon and Hao 2020;Watanabe et al 2015;Szromek 2017;Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace 2012;Marek 2015;McGhee 2019;Arslan 2001;Epstein 2002;Ali et al 2000;Worden 2003;Cui et al 2015;Longenecker et al 2004). In CST, we can understand leadership as responsibility for the common good.…”