Responsible Leadership – A Review of Theories and Literature

Abstract

The growing research on corporate responsibility and focus on sustainable business activities gave rise to responsible leadership (RL) research. With its roots embedded in social relations and ethics fields, the concept of RL has mushroomed considerably over the last decade. This research note serves as a central point to outline the current state of research into RL. Notably, we would summarize the evolution of RL and map it against the multiple levels of analysis. Based on this analysis, we would further delineate the key research gaps and future research directions that researchers could note.

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

“…RL has a wider sphere of accountability and influence compared to the other leadership constructs, expanding leadership as an engaging relational process into the external stakeholder and sustainability domains (Maak et al, 2016). The distinctiveness of RL is largely seated in the relational engagement process with the micro, meso, and macro domains (Tan, 2023) and to ensure sustainable systemic balancing. The micro domain (self‐leadership and awareness and responsibility to one's own organization and its internal stakeholders) (Maak & Pless, 2006; Muff et al, 2022) is essential to the system as its absence could require unattainable altruism or result in the demise of the organization and its stakeholders.…”

“…Because of its foundation in other leadership approaches, the meaning of RL extends beyond most definitions and is inseparably tied to its placement in the leadership domain. While a unified definition of RL is still being debated (Fry & Egel, 2021; Shaaban, 2021; Tan, 2023; Waldman et al, 2020) the model in Figure 3 provides a conducive meaning‐based depiction of RL to give direction and focus to forthcoming research.…”

“…Several researchers have contributed to clarifying the definitional focus of RL. 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).…”

“…The discourse on responsible leadership emerged from a deepening realization that leaders do not function in isolation from the environment and society at large (Pless & Maak, 2011;Voegtlin, 2016). The field of responsible leadership (henceforth RL) has developed rapidly (Tan, 2023), becoming the most widely discussed topic in the leadership discourse (Pless, 2023). However, during the development of RL, it became somewhat separated from the larger leadership discourse to the extent that some ambiguity exists about its place in the leadership domain (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018;Tan, 2023).…”

“…The field of responsible leadership (henceforth RL) has developed rapidly (Tan, 2023), becoming the most widely discussed topic in the leadership discourse (Pless, 2023). However, during the development of RL, it became somewhat separated from the larger leadership discourse to the extent that some ambiguity exists about its place in the leadership domain (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018;Tan, 2023). Maak and Pless (2006) and Pless (2023) reasoned that RL differs distinctly from normative leadership theories such as ethical leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, transformational leadership, and values-based leadership (henceforth EL, SL, AL, T, L, and VBL, respectively).…”