Ethical Leadership as a Balance Between Opposing Neural Networks

Abstract

In this article we explore the implications of opposing domains theory for developing ethical leaders. Opposing domains theory highlights a neurological tension between analytical and socio-emotional reasoning. Specifically, when we engage in analytical reasoning (the Task Positive Network), we suppress our ability to engage in socioemotional reasoning (the Default Mode Network) and vice versa. In this article we bring together the domains of neuroscience, psychology, and ethics, to inform our theorizing around ethical leadership. We propose that a key issue for ethical leadership is achieving a healthy balance between analytical and socio-emotional reasoning. We argue that organizational culture often encourages too heavy a reliance on non-emotional forms of reasoning to arrive at moral judgments (i.e. the TPN). As a result, leaders run the risk of suppressing their ability to pay attention to the human side of moral dilemmas and, in doing so, dehumanize colleagues, particularly subordinates, and clients.

When Do Powerful Stakeholders Give Managers the Latitude to Balance All Stakeholders’ Interests?

“…Firms with an all-stakeholder strategy humanize other stakeholders in powerful stakeholders' eyes by explicitly justifying their decisions and practices on the basis of the harm that can be done to weaker stakeholders as well as the moral obligation to care for their well-being. This makes it easier for powerful stakeholders to appreciate weaker stakeholders' experiential point of view and increases their sense of moral concern for these weaker stakeholders (Rochford, Jack, Boyatzis, & French, 2017).…”

“…The literature on moral identity shows that these practices are situational factors that weaken the impact of moral identity on behavior even for the people for whom moral identity is highly central (Aquino et al, 2009). In addition to an emphasis on personal material outcomes, the discourse and practices linked to a powerful-stakeholder strategy sometimes also depict some human stakeholders as means/instruments that the firm is free to use to achieve financial goals (Rochford et al, 2017). This can lead powerful stakeholders to dehumanize these human stakeholders (Rochford et al, 2017), which in turn reduces the salience of the motivational drivers grounded in morality.…”

“…In addition to an emphasis on personal material outcomes, the discourse and practices linked to a powerful-stakeholder strategy sometimes also depict some human stakeholders as means/instruments that the firm is free to use to achieve financial goals (Rochford et al, 2017). This can lead powerful stakeholders to dehumanize these human stakeholders (Rochford et al, 2017), which in turn reduces the salience of the motivational drivers grounded in morality. On the basis of the above arguments, we propose, Proposition 8.…”

Neuroscience Research and Ethical Leadership: Insights from a Neurological Micro-foundation

“…Furthermore, organizations can try to encourage persons to behave morally by letting them experience a strong ethical culture (Rochford, Jack, Boyatzis, & French, 2017).…”

Yöneti̇m Yazinindaki̇ Nörobi̇li̇m Çalişmalarina Genel Bakiş

“…Liderlik 21 (Lawrence ve Pirson, 2015), (Rochford, 2016), (Lindebaum ve Raftopoulou, 2014), (Waldman v.d., 2011a), (McDonald ve Tang, 2014), (Cropanzano ve Becker, 2013), (Lindebaum, 2013a), (Lindebaum, 2013b), (Lindebaum ve Zundel, 2013), (McLagan, 2013), (Ashkanasy, 2013), (Balthazard v.d., 2012), (Boyatzis v.d., 2012), (Waldman v.d., 2011b), (Jamieson, 2013), (Antonakis v.d., 2009), (Tee, 2015), (Hodgkinson, 2013), (Lee v.d., 2012a), (Trichas v.d., 2017), (Goleman, 2006) Örgüt Çalışmaları 20 (Kathleen, 2013), (Houdek, 2017), (Cropanzano v.d., 2016) , (Lindebaum ve Raftopoulou, 2014), (Spector, 2014), (McDonald ve Tang, 2014), (Healey ve Hodgkinson, 2014), (Cropanzano ve Becker, 2013), (Lindebaum ve Zundel, 2013), (Becker ve Cropanzano, 2010), (Volk ve Köhler, 2012), (Lee v.d., 2012b), (Becker v.d., 2011), (Senior v.d., 2011), (Becker v.d., 2015), (Weaver v.d., 2014), (Schoeneborn v.d., 2013), (Hodgkinson, 2013), (Lee v.d., 2012a), (Uhlmann v.d., 2012),…”