Corporate Social Responsibility Week 5 Guidance

BUS 250
Week 5
Week 5 Instructor Guidance
BUS 250: Corporate & Social Responsibility
BUS 250
Week 5
BUS 250 Course learning map
Week 1: Society and the Organization
Week 2: The Global Community and the Equitable Workplace
Week 3: The Organization’s Environmental Impact
Week 4: Internal Issues
Week 5: Social Media, Philanthropy, and Ethical Dilemmas
3
Week 5 Learning ActivitiesTaskDescriptionDueDiscussion
#1:Social MediaThurs, Day 3Discussion #2:Corporate
PhilanthropyThurs, Day 3Final PaperOrganization Ethical
DilemmasMon, Day 7
Assigned ReadingDescriptionSource Text: Chapter
10Leadership Challenges and Opportunities (Hammond &
Christensen, 2016)Article: Matthew & HeimerMatthews, C., &
Heimer, M. (2016). The 5 biggest corporate scandals of
2016. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/12/28/biggest-

corporate-scandals-2016/
Article: ShenShen, L. (2017). The 10 biggest business scandals
of 2017. Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/2017/12/31/biggest-corporate-scandals-
misconduct-2017-pr/
4
Week 5: Important notes
Written Assignment:
Note the page requirement of 8-10 pages
Note resource requirements of at least four scholarly sources (in
addition to text)
Note point value for this assignment!
Don’t forget your end of course survey!
LATE WORK is not permitted in week five!
5
This week you will learn to:
Evaluate the free speech of employees when giving opinions
about their employers in a public forum.
Analyze how companies can direct their giving strategically.
Synthesize previous learning outcomes in a final project
Week 5 Learning Objectives
6

Chapter 10
Leadership Challenges & Opportunities
Concepts
Leadership as Monarchy and Divine Right
Great Man Theory
Trait Theories
Behavioral Theories
Process Theories
Challenges
Waste Reduction
Social Equality
(Hammond & Christensen, Chapter 10 , 2016)
7
Trait theory
There are several trait theories. Two of the most popular are
Big Five
Sixteen Personality Factor Model
The big five personality theory was developed by McCrae
(Westerhoff, 2008). The five factors are extroversion,
openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism
(Westerhoff). Based on how high an individual scores in each
category, the trait theory can be used to describe personality.
For example, a successful salesperson would likely score high
in extroversion. Extroversion includes three measures:

communicativeness, initiative, and cheerfulness. High openness
scores are often seen in artists. Openness includes creativity and
novelty. A good example of someone who should have a high
agreeableness factor is an elementary school teacher.
Agreeableness includes empathy, warmth, and friendliness.
Those with high levels of conscientiousness include scientists
and accountants. Conscientiousness factors include discipline,
trust, and motivation. The final factor is neuroticism. This
factor measures emotional stability. Individuals how score high
in neuroticism are anxious, inhibited, lack self-assurance, and
are often more moody (Westerhoff).
How can trait tests help an organization?
8
Chapter 10
Leadership Challenges & Opportunities
Next Generation Leaders
Systems thinkers
Emotional intelligence
Collaborative skills
Transparent communication
Ethical behavior
Steward for the environment
Nonhierarchical Leadership
Continuous learning
(Hammond & Christensen, Chapter 10, 2016)
9
Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence measures both personality and
behavioral characteristics. Factors measured can include
Persistence
self-awareness
Diligence
impulse control
motivation
(Plaude & Rascevska, 2011).
Corporate Philanthropy
“Philanthropy can often be the most cost-effective way for a
company to improve its competitive context, enabling
companies to leverage the efforts and infrastructure of
nonprofits and other institutions” (Porter & Kramer, 2002).
Porter and Kramer (2002) posited that organizations can utilize
corporate philanthropy as a competitive advantage. They
suggested that using Porter’s four elements of competitive
context as a foundation would be the best method. The method
is based on four key elements. First is factor conditions (Porter
& Kramer). Attaining high productivity is dependent upon
several factors including high-quality technological and
scientific institutions, the availability of natural resources,
acceptable physical infrastructure, trained workers and,
efficient and transparent administrative processes (Porter &
Kramer).

Second, demand conditions include the size of the local market,
the sophistication of the customers in the market, and the
suitability of product standards (Porter & Kramer, 2002). The
more savvy the local customers are the more competitive the
market is likely to be. This is because the customers are better
able to provide insight that can help in innovation. The third
factor is the context for strategy and rivalry. This factor is
related to governance because rules, incentives, and societal
norms affect competition and have influence on productivity.
The final factor is related and supporting industries. An
organization’s productivity can be boosted through nearby
first-rate supporting industries and services (Porter & Kramer).
11
Organizational Ethical dilemmas
Commonly organizational mistakes that lead to ethical
dilemmas
Leadership does not model the appropriate behaviors
Leaders act entitled
Cutting corners to meet misplaced incentives or being rewarded
for the wrong things
Employees feeling they must obey leadership even when they
know they are being asked to do something wrong.
Fear of conflict
Defensive logic – The everyone else is doing it theory
(Ceplenski, 2013)
Additional Resources
From Ashford’s Library –
Are we allowed to discipline employee who badmouthed boss on

Facebook? (2017, Mar. 11) HR Specialist: Minnesota
Employment Law Apr. 2016: 8. Business Insights: Global.
Lipton, J. (2007, August 14). Mattel gets the lead out. Forbes.
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/14/mattel-
china-recall- markets-equity-cx_jl_0814markets12.html
Story, L. (2007, August 2). Lead paint prompts Mattel to recall
967,000 toys. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com
Story, L., & Barboza, D. (2007, August 15). Mattel recalls 19
million toys sent from China. New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com
Update if applicable.
13
Additional resources
From Ashford’s Library – Films on Demand
Philanthropy, Inc.: The bottom line on corporate charity [Video
file]. (2012). Retrieved from
http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753
&xtid=53327
Philanthropy, Inc.: The bottom line on corporate charity [Video
file]. (2012). Retrieved from
http://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753
&xtid=53327
Any questions?
Please post your questions in the Ask the Instructor thread.

References
Hammond, S. C., & Christensen, L. J. (2016). Corporate and
social responsibility: Road map for a sustainable future. San
Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002, December). The
competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-
competitive-advantage-of- corporate-philanthropy
Westerhoff, N. (2008, Dec. 17). The “big five” personality
traits. Scientific American. Retrieved from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-big-five/
16
16
Why Geography Matters
Discussion Points Template
Name: __________________________________
Chapter #: ____________
Directions: Use this form to prepare key points from the text for
in-class discussion. Under the analysis sections, include your
own thoughts and interpretations, why the quote or key point is
important, connections to other parts of the text or your own
experiences, etc. Also, be sure to cite any and all essential
elements or geographic concepts that apply as you discuss them.
Finally, include a key geographic understanding—or
takeaway—that you gleaned from the chapter, explaining the
connection to the geography and why it resonated with you.

Page #:
Author Quote or Key Point:
Analysis:
Page #:
Analysis:
Page #:
Analysis:
Chapter Key Geographic Understanding:

10 Leadership Challengesand Opportunities
R-diger Wittmann/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Identify how the concept of leadership has changed over
time.
2. Summarize the challenges regarding sustainability and CSR
that future leaders face.
3. Describe the characteristics of next-generation leaders as
they relate to sustainability and CSR.
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Section 10.1Changing Concepts of Leadership
Pretest Questions

1. The concept and meaning of leadership has remained
relatively constant over time. T/F
2. Trait theories of leadership opened the door for leadership
training. T/F
3. Waste reduction and social equity have always been the
concerns of corporate
leaders. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Every generation defines and redefines the concept of
leadership as it faces the challenges
of its era. Certainly, some time periods provide more material
and opportunity for reflection
than others. For example, in 1862, as the fractured United States
fought the Civil War, Presi-
dent Abraham Lincoln said, “The dogmas of the quiet past are
inadequate to the stormy pres-
ent. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise
with the occasion. As our case is
new, so we must think anew and act anew” (as cited in Woolley
& Peters, 2015).
Part of Lincoln’s legacy stemmed from his ability to “think and
act anew.” While the issues
facing our globalized world significantly differ compared to the
1800s, some themes remain
the same: When it comes to issues like CSR and sustainability,
it seems necessary for brave
people to think and act anew. This chapter examines how the
next generation of leaders can
begin this process. If society is to face new problems in a novel
way, completing such tasks is

not easy, but it is essential.
The first nine chapters of this text illustrated the difficult and
specific problems of build-
ing socially responsible and sustainable organizations. The
opportunity to make the future
dramatically different from the past—and the present—presents
unique leadership chal-
lenges that we address in this chapter. After reviewing the
history of leadership, we describe
CSR-relevant conditions facing leaders. Finally, we describe
skills that leaders must mas-
ter if they are to effectively lead in a global, environmentally
stressed, and economically
fluctuating world.
10.1 Changing Concepts of Leadership
This text has discussed critical concepts of sustainability and
stewardship. Both are important
terms closely related to leadership. However, the concept of
leadership and our expectations
for it have evolved over time, as all concepts do. In this section,
we describe how concepts of
leadership have changed. Students should note that this helps us
appreciate history and lays
the foundation for a deeper understanding of how leaders can be
successful when they are
held accountable for corporate social responsibility.

Leadership as Monarchy and Divine Right
Western cultural norms about leadership have strong roots in a
patriarchal and monarchical
social structure—a male-dominated social order in which royal
families prevailed. In this
property- and lineage-based mind-set, the fundamental
assumption was that kings and
queens (or other monarchs) were entitled to the positions they
held (in some cases such posi-
tions were considered to be appointed, or at least approved, by a
deity). Typically, in monar-
chies positions of power are transferred based on lineage. The
average person has little access
to the monarchs; rather, he or she has to contribute significantly
to the well-being of more
powerful people. In monarchies, leadership historically came
from “an outside source, the
power of the original source of delegation or control—divine,
delegated, hereditary, or raw
force” (Miller, 2004, p.110). In other words, leadership came as
a divine right but was often
maintained by brute force.
In a world dominated by divine right, lead-
ership was completely self-justified. It was
more about authority and control and less
about collaboration and information. A
king, queen, emperor, sultan, or shogun
each had authority over the local world, and
most sought to expand access to resources
in competition against other kingdoms or
principalities. In other words, it was the role
of the monarch to obtain as many resources
as possible and protect his or her people
from other monarchs who also wanted
to acquire more resources. This changed

as leadership theory evolved and moved
toward a CSR mind-set and generated an
expectation of sustainability.
Great Man Theory
As a result of the historical dominance of certain families and
monarchies, it is not surprising
that the first management theories about leadership were called
“great man theories.” These
assume that a leader is both born in the right place and
developed to protect against the chaos
of nature and malevolent others. Also, despite exceptions such
as Joan of Arc or Queen Eliza-
beth, as a cultural by-product of the times, it was typically
assumed that all leaders would be
men. In terms of how this relates to CSR, such thinking
suggests that dominance and compe-
tition define and characterize leaders. While leadership thinking
has changed and matured,
such a mind-set may still characterize lingering attitudes about
nature and larger society.
Monarchies gave way to forms of democracy and capitalism, but
conceptualizations of lead-
ership did not really change at first. Great man theories of
leadership replaced the idea that
leaders were simply leaders by birthright, though they continued
to imply that leaders were
special people, and usually men, who developed leadership
traits.
Stefan Wermuth/AP
Despite sharing more leadership and power,
Queen Elizabeth II and her family are an exam-
ple of a monarchy.

Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle (1840) popularized the great
man theory in the 1840s, add-
ing the belief that heroes influenced history through personal
attributes and divine inspira-
tion. This idea eventually gave way to other, less deterministic
conceptualizations of leader-
ship that are different from modern-day CSR and sustainability
concerns. Still, many people
tend to wait for someone powerful to emerge and lead the
charge to a more socially and envi-
ronmentally friendly future. When people groom themselves to
stand out or wait for others to
dominate, they echo the Western thinking that dominated the
19th century.
Trait Theories
Research on the trait theory of leadership began in the early part
of the 20th century. Trait
theory describes personality traits and attributes of effective
leaders. It stemmed from the
hope that if one could understand what made great people great,
one could screen, select,
and even train others to have those traits. Some trait theories go
so far as to suggest that good
leaders have certain physical attributes, including male gender.
In the trait theory of leader-
ship, scholars sought to understand the physical and personal
characteristics of leaders, but
they were biased by the samples offered by the early 20th

century’s social order—at the time
almost all leaders were White males with access to property and
sources of wealth.
In 1948 one of the first trait theorists, Ralph Stogdill, published
an article in the Journal of
Psychology titled “Personal Factors Associated With
Leadership.” Stogdill’s research showed
that leaders’ characteristics included capacity, achievement,
responsibility, participation, and
status. Other trait theories, whether based on research or not,
argued that leaders must have
subjective characteristics like charisma, be smart in specific
ways, and generally be male.
Trait theory maintained that leaders are born but also suggested
that leaders must develop
certain traits to leverage their birth advantages into effective
leadership. Trait theories led to
the suggestion that leaders demonstrate consistent behaviors and
tendencies in certain situa-
tions and popularized the idea that people can enhance their
natural skills and abilities. Trait
theories also opened the door to the democratization of talent
and leadership. Scholars and
philosophers began to argue that leadership traits could be
learned and replicated by differ-
ent people, perhaps even those who are different from the
majority.
Behavioral Theories
As leadership behaviors were identified as a key factor of a
firm’s success, behavioral theory
began to emerge in the 1950s as a way to promote corporate
success. Rather than focusing
on traits intrinsic to an individual, behavioral theories look
outside the leader and focus on

actions or behaviors. One behavioral theorist, Douglas
McGregor (1960), offered a research-
based concept called theory X and theory Y. Theory X leaders
behave as if the workers they
lead are cogs in a machine. They assume workers are lazy and
need motivation from a power-
ful and influential leader. In contrast, theory Y leaders see
workers as wanting to do a good
job and as creative and innovative. McGregor (1960)
emphasized that a leader’s behavior
would vary depending on which view he or she adopted.
In 1967 Fieldler’s contingency theory separated the behaviors
of leaders into either a task
or a relational orientation. Fielder argued that some leaders
emphasized “getting things
done,” (task orientation) while others emphasized “having
strong relationships” (relational
orientation). Later, in the 1970s Hersey and Blanchard proposed
situational leadership, argu-
ing that leaders employed either task or relational behaviors as
the situation required. While
helpful, these concepts of leadership are limited to individual
behavior and not systems and
sustainability.
As the field of leadership scholarship matured, academics and
practitioners moved away

from these male-dominated, trait-dominated, and command-and-
control orientations toward
process theories of leadership, which bring workplaces closer to
the concept of sustainability
and CSR.
Process Theory
The next leadership theory to emerge employed concepts related
to sustainability. In 1991
scholar Margaret Wheatley wrote Leadership and the New
Science. The book is a primer for
systems theory and complexity theory in leadership, and it
emphasizes a process theory
of leadership. This theory posits that leadership cannot simply
be observed (think of traits
or behaviors), nor does it flow in one direction, from leader to
follower. Rather, leadership
occurs when leaders apply knowledge and skills to their
interactions with others. Impor-
tantly, process theories view leadership as bidirectional, where
learning flows between
leader and follower; in fact, the very construct of “leader” and
“follower” are less useful and
thus downplayed in process theories. Wheatley (2006)
postulates that leadership should be
viewed through the lens of chaos theory to best understand how
organizations really work—
the result of using such a lens is that leaders will take a systems
view of the organization
and seek to involve as many stakeholders as possible in
decision-making processes. Prior
to Wheatley, other relationship-based mind-sets, including those
put forth by scholars who
discuss servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) or theory Z
leadership (Ouchi, 1981), argued for
a more holistic view of what leadership is and could be, which

brings us closer to a sustain-
ability and pro-CSR model.
A process theory of leadership remains central to those who
embrace the concept of sustain-
ability. It encompasses the idea of traits, in that all leaders must
have certain traits or capaci-
ties that match the challenges they face. But process theory also
encompasses a contingency
theory of leadership because certain traits match certain
environments, and no single trait
ensures success in all environments. The process theory of
leadership puts managers beyond
the “win–lose” traditions of older theories and toward a more
holistic approach that pays
attention to important social and environmental relationships.
For example, research from author Jim Collins argues for what
he calls level 5 leadership. In
his best-selling book Good to Great, Collins (2001) shows why
some companies remain simply
functional and “good,” as opposed to becoming “great,” which
tends to mean highly profitable
and composed of engaged and loyal employees. Collins claims
that level 5 leadership reflects
a general concern for a leader’s character and motivation and
for all involved in the process.
He proposes that everyone should be involved in the process of
leadership, including share-
holders, employees, suppliers, customers, and people in the
community.
Process theories of leadership are potentially more compatible
with the challenges of the
future, which are likely to be entirely different from challenges
of the past. The next sections

address those challenges and discuss how leaders can prepare to
face them with confidence.
Section 10.2Challenges Facing Future Leaders
10.2 Challenges Facing Future Leaders
The previous section described concepts of leadership
developed in and for previous genera-
tions. These notions of leadership were adopted before people
could fully see the importance
of creating socially responsible and sustainable corporations
that can improve gender and
racial equality and other socially responsible behaviors. These
older models of leadership,
while exceptionally helpful, were also very limited. For
example, they tended to be simplistic
and linear and did not embrace complexity and systems. They
tended to be oriented toward
men and privileged classes and did not take into account the
particular characteristics of
women or other socioeconomic groups. The older models
assumed the ever-present need
for an organizational hierarchy and did not imagine new kinds
of organic organizations that
would be less hierarchical and perhaps less permanent. Despite
these significant drawbacks,
theories from previous generations still have some validity.
Vestiges of previous thinking also
continue to dominate corporate and educational culture.
However, older theories of leader-
ship do not point society in the direction of embracing key

contemporary ideas such as waste
reduction, social equality, and environmental responsibility, all
of which matter to many mod-
ern corporate leaders.
Waste Reduction
The rise of the corporation began about 250 years ago, when
social interests led to the cre-
ation of hospitals, and political–business interests such as those
of the British East India Com-
pany (Rao, 2011) or the Hudson’s Bay Company became tools
for economic conquest. Accord-
ing to Rao, globalization created the corporation because large-
scale enterprise was needed
to dominate in a world where competition remained unchecked.
In such corporate environ-
ments, leaders were expected to compete and dominate.
Moderation, social responsibility,
and waste reduction were not visible or important to governing
boards or investors.
For example, the Hudson’s Bay Company, one of the oldest
corporations in the world, was
charted by the British to trade with North American natives and
secure a steady supply of
fur. It was also used to politically and economically dominate
North America, at one time
claiming more than 15% of the continent as its “territory.” But
as hunting grounds in the east
were depleted and fur became scarce, the trappers and traders
working for the corporation
moved west to find new territories. There was no leadership or
discussion of topics such as
conservation, waste reduction, care for the environment, or even
care for the native people
who supplied the fur (Carlos & Lewis, 1993). The Hudson’s Bay

Company was essentially an
instrument of political and social dominance in a political
rivalry first between British and
French factions and later between British and American
factions. It represents an early and
dominant influence on subsequent market behaviors of many
American businesses.
Social Equality
Social equity was also not typically part of corporate values in
early years. Corporations
practiced protectionist policies that guarded equity owners at
the expense of many groups,
including Black and other Americans who were enslaved, as
well as women and laborers.
Section 10.3Next-Generation Leaders
Many US corporations (and some universities) still in business
today benefited from support-
ing the slave trade. For example, Aetna Insurance has
acknowledged paying life insurance
to slave owners when a slave died. Like many responsible
companies involved in behaviors
now deemed atrocious, Aetna acknowledged its role and
apologized. Still, this illustrates how
corporations throughout history have often taken the wrong side
on moral issues (“15 Major
Corporations,” 2013).
While some might think the issue of slavery is a part of deep

history, the issue remains alive
today as corporations, particularly in global environments,
grapple with how people, even
children, are compelled to work. The question of social equity
and work participation is a
permanent challenge for corporations.
Similarly, labor relations and workers’ rights are permanent
leadership challenges. Corpora-
tions have a long and deep history of challenging what is now
regarded as workers’ right to
organize in a labor union. In 1894 presidential candidate
Eugene Debs worked to unionize
the Pullman railroad car company in Chicago. The local workers
were convinced to strike, and
other rail workers’ unions also went on strike in support of their
colleagues in Chicago. By
summer, more than 125,000 workers were on strike, shutting
down the ever-important rail
system in the United States. There were riots, clashes, and an
eventual resolution, but more
than 60 people died and more than $80 million in damages was
caused in an effort to deny
workers the right to organize (Papke, 1999).
Gender inequity is another permanent leadership challenge. One
hundred years ago, women
did not generally participate as corporate employees. In World
War II many women took
over factory positions held by men who were called into
combat. By the 1950s women were
not just on the floor of the factories but in their boardrooms. By
the 1970s the wage equity
debate was raging, and it continues today. Achieving gender
equity and creating appropriate
work environments for people of all gender identities are an

ongoing challenge for corporate
leaders.
Research has found that corporate leaders rate CSR and
sustainability as important leader-
ship concerns (Bonini & Gorner, 2011). However, it is
extremely complex to manage each of
these and also maintain the corporation’s many financial, social,
and environmental issues.
The leadership challenge is large, but newer models of
leadership share the responsibility.
10.3 Next-Generation Leaders
Each student of CSR and sustainability should ask themselves:
What kind of leader will I be?
What kind of leader will I work with? What kind of leader is
ideal for the world I would like
to live in? The following sections articulate a vision of a next-
generation leader who builds
and enhances a socially responsible and sustainable corporation.
We argue that such a leader
displays specific aspects of leadership; each one is essential to
building responsible and sus-
tainable organizations of any size. Table 10.1 compares how a
next-generation leader differs
from older standards of leadership. Note that our model focuses
on leadership actions, rather
than on a leader’s characteristics or traits.

Table 10.1: The evolution of a next-generation leader
Old Leadership Style New Leadership Style
Leader as: Head, director
Top of the hierarchy
Colleague, collaborator
Systems thinker
Scale: Loyal to local
Zoom in
Global citizen
Zoom out
Critical skills: Expert
Impose
Emotionally intelligent
Empathy
Lead by: Control
Sole problem solver
Collaboration
Problem clarifier; joint problem solver
Communication: Top down
Dialectic
Transparent
Dialogic
Ethics: Bigger is better Leaner is better

Environment: Exploit
Polluter
Explore
Steward
Organize by: Hierarchy
Geography
Information flow
Virtual proximity
Learning is: A prerequisite
A luxury
A cost
An ongoing process
A necessity
An investment
Source: Hammond, S. and Christensen, L. (2016). “The New
Generation Leader [unpublished paper].” Reprinted with
permission.
Systems Thinker
This entire text emphasizes the value of systems thinking. Here,
we specifically emphasize
that next-generation leaders cannot skip developing this mind-
set. For decades, the opposite
of systems thinking—a mind-set called scientific
reductionism—was considered the way lead-
ers could solve most problems. Reductionism was based on the
philosophy of René Descartes
and Isaac Newton. It was popularized by other scientists as they
explored an ever-smaller
universe looking for miniscule molecules, atoms, or quarks to

explain physics and life experi-
ences. Scientific reductionism requires the searcher to zoom in;
to take a detailed and particu-
lar look at the physical world’s building blocks and events—or
in business, a closer look at the
building blocks of organizational successes or failures.
A systems thinking mind-set (as introduced in Chapter 2) offers
a contrary view of the physical
world. In systems thinking, the only way to understand a
problem is to see its relationship to
the whole. A systems thinker understands the interactions and
linkages between the various
elements that make up an entire system. In other words, if one
is trying to understand what
happens in an ecosystem, it does not make sense to zoom in on
the microbiology of a single
species; rather, one should look at all the elements in that
system and their relationships to
each another. In a physical ecosystem, one who takes a systems
view looks at each species:
the geography, the wetlands, and the interactions that occur
between those elements. In an
organizational system, one who takes a systems view looks at
each department, along with
customers, suppliers, partners, and potential partners. The
difficulty with systems thinking
usually relates to clarifying the boundaries of the system and

how deep to investigate, inspect,
and verify the connections.
As discussed in Chapter 2, systems thinkers view a business
enterprise or corporation as part
of a complex and dynamic whole. In a dynamic system,
corporate actors interact with govern-
ment, the environment, individuals, the community, and other
entities under the principles of
complex systems. Energy and materials flow into a complex
system. These are processed and
flow out of the system through boundaries that define the
system. However, those boundaries
are always problematic. For example, it can be challenging for
an employee to know the exact
boundary between work and social life. For a company, it can
be difficult to know the bound-
ary between the corporation and the community. The truth is
that our social lives are tied up
at work and are part of a community. In other words, every
system is part of a larger one, and
it is often difficult to distinguish the boundaries between the
two. Helping define, protect,
and clarify boundaries may be one job for future leaders who
support colleagues in creating
a socially responsible and sustainable world.
Features of systems thinking that next-generation leaders will
need to consider include the
following:
• Systems function with lots of information. In business,
raw materials are useless
unless one knows how to turn the raw product into something
more valuable. Accord-
ingly, systems thinkers spend considerable time talking about

learning organizations.
New knowledge is essential to keep a system alive (Senge,
1990).
• Systems also seek equilibrium. Certain patterns are visible
in the behavior of any
system, but patterns are subject to interpretation and are often
unclear. Also, some
amount of randomness or chaos influences the behavior of every
system. This makes
challenges of leadership particularly difficult, because while the
leader is trying to
bring equilibrium to the system, he or she cannot fully take into
account the patterns
that influence it; nor can he or she or account for random
events.
• Systems are composed of many parts. A leader who adopts
a systems theory per-
spective understands that the system has many parts that
interact through rela-
tionships. Corporate systems are nested inside other systems
with which they
overlap. Over time, systems change, as do inputs, processes,
and the ability to
provide a value-added output. Some of those changes are out of
the leader’s control
(Skyttner, 2006).
How does being a systems thinker make a next-generation
leader different from the leaders
of the past? Good advice has emerged from Colonel George E.
Reed, the director of Command
and Leadership Studies at the U.S. Army War College. When
contemplating how tomorrow’s
leaders can adopt and apply systems thinking, he suggests the

following:
Focus on the purpose of the system.
Identify patterns and use feedback loops to understand the
dynamics of systems.
Consider the whole rather than the components.
Consider the present, but don’t focus too much on short-term
achievements. Think of
long-term goals (Reed, 2006).
Apply Your Knowledge: Systems Thinking Tools
This exercise can be done individually or in a group, in
abbreviated form, or over a long
period of time for greater insight. The objective is to see
important relationships and
processes and to identify how an organization adds value and
relates to a larger community.
Step 1: Choose an organization to research. List all stakeholders
in the company, in-
cluding owners, employees, customers, suppliers, and so forth.
Put the name of each
on a 3-by-5-inch index card. For example: John Gross and Sons.
Step 2: Sort each type of stakeholder into a category. For
example, John Doe and
Sons— Supplier.
Step 3: List all of the corporation’s essential processes. These

are generally areas
where the corporation performs a service or adds value. For
example, a hospital
performs surgery (among other things).
Step 4: Create a way to visually represent the corporate system
that could be shown
to any of its stakeholders. Your map should show the following:
The types of key stakeholders.
The relationship between key stakeholders.
The relationship between key stakeholders and critical
processes.
Critical process in the form of inputs, processes, and outputs.
The system’s relationship with the broader environment.
Step 5: List all critical relationships and processes. Ask:
How can the corporation’s leader better manage key
relationships?
How can critical processes improve?
How is the corporation impacting the environment?
Global Citizen
Becoming an active and effective systems thinker means
considering factors beyond one’s
own neighborhood, corporation, or immediate work
environment. One has to look at the
broader communities and ecosystems in which these elements
reside. For most, this means
becoming a global citizen. Doing so does not mean giving up
citizenship in one’s own local
community, nor does it mean abandoning any kind of nationalist
or patriotic spirit. Being
a global citizen means taking responsibility for problems that
require local and potentially
global solutions. A global citizen understands the needs of the
whole and considers those

when making personal decisions and directing groups, teams,
and organizations.
This sometimes means considering linkages between problems
far away and behaviors at
home. A classic example comes from the apparel industry.
Consider the deadliest garment
factory disaster in history, which occurred in Bangladesh in
2013. More than 1,000 work-
ers died and 2,500 were injured when owners pressured workers
to assemble garments in
a decrepit building that collapsed during peak hours (Butler,
2013). A global citizen takes
the time to consider the connection between wealthy, developed
countries creating demand
for new and inexpensive apparel and the pressures placed on
low-income garment factory
workers who cannot relocate for better jobs. A global citizen
and CSR-focused leader would
also act once he or she realizes the connection. After the
tragedy in Bangladesh, British retail-
ers associated with the facility all signed a legally binding
safety agreement backed by the
international trade union (named IndustriALL) and the
Bangladeshi government. The deal
requires certain brands to contribute up to $500,000 per year
toward safety inspections and
fire safety measures (Butler, 2013).

The UN defined what it means to be a global citizen by
authoring and publishing the Dec-
laration of Emerging Human Rights. Being a global citizen
means taking both a critical and
transformative perspective regarding corporations, society, and
the environment. The docu-
ment argues that a global citizen has both rights and
responsibilities. Advocates of the Dec-
laration of Human Rights elaborated on it, extending its reach to
create a more harmonious
world motivated by citizens unafraid of oppression and willing
to adopt innovative thinking
(O’Sullivan, 2008).
Authors Graham Pike and David Selby offer leaders a slight
twist on the concept of global citi-
zenship. They have developed the concept of world-mindedness,
which involves understand-
ing the world as one unified system. Global citizens have a
responsibility to advocate not only
for their own interests, but for the interests of the whole planet.
This holistic understanding
attends to a broader set of human values and beliefs and
encourages people to appreciate
broader global systems and issues and to have better cross-
cultural understandings (Pike &
Selby, 2000).
Previous chapters described the elements of cross-cultural
difference. What we term the
“next-generation leader” will navigate cultural complexity, with
all its nuances and difficul-
ties. It would be inaccurate to assume there is a unified culture
anywhere. Many cultures are
individualist, while others are collectivist. Some are

universalist, while some remain particu-
larist (see Chapter 4.3). Next-generation leaders will have to
navigate these differences and
find a “third way” or viable path that can blend the virtues and
vices of multiple cultures. The
third way is one that does not violate any one cultural
perspective. It is a cocreated option
where people with unified intentions but different cultural
values come together to make
progress despite cultural differences. The ability to search for
and find a third way remains
the ultimate task of a global citizen.
Emotional Intelligence
Older concepts of leadership regarded intelligence as having
expertise in math, language, or
an organizationally specific technical skill. People of older
mind-sets often assumed that the
smartest person in the room would make the best leader. Author
and scholar Daniel Goleman
(Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2003; Goleman, 2004) provides
a different perspective, specifi-
cally regarding the concept of emotional intelligence, which he
says is an essential character-
istic of effective leaders.
According to Goleman’s research, emotional intelligence
primarily involves being self-
aware, which is different from being globally aware (Goleman
et al., 2003). That means having
social skills that involve empathy and considering others’
feelings when making leadership
decisions. It also means, on a personal level, that the leader has
self-awareness and under-
stands his or her own emotions, strengths, weaknesses, and
motivations. Goleman (2004)

argues that the ability to control and redirect disruptive
impulses and moods is among a
leader’s most significant skills. Consider an angry CEO who
kicks a trash can in front of his
employees. He is relieved of his leadership position within a
week—not because his actions
physically harmed employees, but because his lack of emotional
regulation indicated he was
not in control of himself. Goleman (2004) tells us that our
ability to control emotion and
understand how it impacts others is critical. This also involves
understanding what motivates
us—and what might motivate others. Most emotionally
intelligent leaders relish achievement
for its own sake, but this goes beyond personal achievement; it
involves the achievement of
others and sustaining the corporation and a broader system.
Goleman advocates that the ability to empathize and understand
people’s emotional makeup
is another essential characteristic of an effective leader
(Goleman et al., 2003). This implies
it is critical to be able to work in different cultures with people
who have different emotional
drivers. It follows that the next generation of leaders will need
to have social skills in addition
to intellectual skills (Goleman, 2004).

Collaborative Skills
Collaborative skills may be among a leader’s most critical as he
or she works to create a sus-
tainable corporation. Leaders must be able to seek, hear, and
integrate the expertise of oth-
ers to find optimal solutions to problems. In doing so, they
often face task ambiguity, which
describes situations that are constantly changing. Leaders often
do not know which prob-
lems demand time, the significance of these problems, or how to
get past them to focus on
more important matters. Sometimes the best way to emerge from
such ambiguity requires
collaboration.
Research by Gratton and Erickson (2007) found that
collaboration improves when individu-
als’ and team members’ roles are clearly defined and well
understood. In other words, col-
laboration improves when leaders create an environment where
others’ expertise is known
and valued. Without role clarity, team members are likely to
waste time negotiating roles and
protecting turf rather than focusing on the problems at hand.
Gratton and Erickson (2007)
also found that team members are more likely to want to
collaborate in environments where
there is some degree of ambiguity. In such situations, leaders do
not define the problem and
simply tell others to tackle known solutions. Instead, ambiguous
situations feature team
members helping after leaders describe priorities. Through
dialogue, the team creates solu-
tions together. In this way, collaboration enables problem
solving (Gratton & Erickson, 2007).

Historic models of leadership favored individuals who acted
unilaterally, insider groups with
little or no diversity, and leaders who adopted similar
approaches to many problems. This
explains why corporations of the past tended to gauge success
by the single measure of pleas-
ing shareholders with financial returns, rather than the complex
measure of being socially
responsible and building a sustainable organization that can
both please shareholders and
restore the environment.
Chapter 4 addressed global citizenship and the importance of
including people from all cul-
tures in corporate society. Not only will next-generation leaders
need to be global citizens,
they will need to welcome others into the complex corporate
system and hear and value every-
one’s contributions. They will need to collaborate with
stakeholders, including government
regulators. Chapter 6.3 discussed government regulation and
noted the increased role of
regulators in corporate affairs. Next-generation leaders will
need to establish productive and
hopeful relationships with regulators and establish common
ground via collaboration.
Next-generation leaders will also extensively use dialogue to

solve complex problems. A com-
plex problem is one that is more complicated than any one
person can solve alone. Most prob-
lems that leaders face today require multiple experts to solve. In
addition to finding such
experts, a leader must also motivate people to implement
solutions. Research shows that
people are more likely to embrace and successfully implement
solutions when they are part
of defining the problem and finding its solution (Hammond,
Cissna, & Anderson, 2003).
Transparent Communication
Working with others requires strong communication skills, and
both parties must be open,
honest, and transparent about their incentives, biases, and
motivations. Corporations of the
future face increased public scrutiny and government
regulation, which requires greater
transparency from the organization and all of its
representatives. Transparency will also be
an issue within corporations, in terms of how employees relate
to each other and employee
rights (discussed in Chapter 3)—particularly in corporations
over which employees have
some ownership. Partial owners expect to know more about how
and why decisions are
made; this trend will likely continue in the future. Relatedly, as
discussed in Chapter 6, leaders
have strong obligations to act as fiduciaries. When issues of
equity (see Chapter 7) add to the
complexities of fiduciary relationships, next-generation leaders
face the additional challenge
of balancing relationships with transparency while maintaining
competitive standing in the
marketplace.

Interestingly, people are conscious of what others are watching;
transparency allows others
to see and be seen making choices. For next-generation leaders
it will be difficult but essential
to create an environment that fosters values and practices
transparency—and the best way to
encourage such behavior is to personally model it.
Researchers Schnackenberg and Tomlinson (2014) suggest there
are three kinds of impor-
tant transparency: information disclosure, clarity, and accuracy.
Information disclosure means
that people within a system must have access to all other
information generated by that sys-
tem. Clarity refers to information that is clear, understandable,
and usable. Accuracy means
that information generated by the system is correct enough for
consumers to make sound and
informed decisions. While many corporations are concerned
about keeping trade secrets and
protecting intellectual property, some stakeholders encourage
leaders and others to practice
radical transparency. This is a leadership practice whereby the
majority of decision making
is public. In other words, documents, arguments in support or
against a proposal, and final
decisions are public and remain publicly archived
(Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2014).
In a 2012 article published in the Harvard Business Review,
Smith and Tabibnia claim that
radical transparency could be good for business. As evidence,
they cite the private research
firm Qualtrics, whose leaders make performance appraisal data
on every employee available

to everyone else in the company. By removing what is
traditionally “secret,” Qualtrics hopes
to absolve the distractions and fears typically associated with
performance appraisal. The
entire workforce has access to information made available on
the quarterly objectives and
results that each employee has achieved, including customer
satisfaction targets. Weekly
employee goals and up-to-the-minute performance reviews and
bonuses are posted. Doing
so has increased retention and employee satisfaction (Smith &
Tabibnia, 2012).
Transparency proactively allows a system’s outsiders to see
what is going on inside. Dialogue
lets more people participate in multiple conversations, including
those around corporate
governance. Chapter 2.3 discussed the role and process of using
dialogue to involve others
in strategic planning, scenario planning, process mapping,
continuous improvement, and
other critical management functions. These principles hold and
define the skill sets of next-
generation leaders.
Ethical Behavior
There is a relationship between lean management principles and
management ethics. While

the overall stated goal of lean management is to create a more
efficient company, the Six
Sigma system and the Shingo model described in Chapter 1
articulate important principles
that also reflect deep ethical values about how people should
treat each other.
Michael Ballé (2015), executive coach, author, and cofounder of
Institut Lean France, identi-
fies 10 practical choices that “lean” leaders often make. Each
has an ethical or socially respon-
sible principle at its core and an organization’s long-term
sustainability as its goal.
The first practical choice of lean leadership is to put customer
satisfaction over company
interests. Always acting in the company’s self-interest instead
of putting customers first can
lead to unethical or socially irresponsible behaviors. Attending
to the customers’ needs in the
short term helps build a long-term relationship, which in turn
ensures satisfaction and can
lead to greater sustainability when firms gain customer loyalty.
The second practical choice in lean leadership is that facts are
preferred to data. Data are sub-
ject to interpretation, while facts are imbued with context and
are thus capable of directing
action. Employees are more likely to give input when they know
they will be protected by a
corporate culture that relies on facts rather than on the
interpretation of data.
The third practical choice of lean leaders is to see problems as
learning opportunities, rather
than occasions for blame. Lean organizations place a high value

on learning. When failure
occurs, it is not necessarily the fault of the person closest to it,
as it could be a signal or symp-
tom of a system-wide problem. Using a problem or failure to
improve the system turns a
negative into a positive. The resulting benefits can help
workers, suppliers, customers, and
coworkers learn from problems rather than equating them with
conflict and blame.
The fourth practical choice of lean leaders is to prefer shorter
lead times, or the time it takes
to provide a product or service to the customer. This is efficient
because shorter lead times
reduce waste and pollution and make companies more eco-
friendly. This choice also relates
to the first practical choice of lean leaders, as it makes reacting
to customer demands central
to how business managers pace production and fulfillment.
The fifth practical choice is that leaders should value team
effort over individual performance.
Many organizations perform individual performance
evaluations, yet most workers know
that individual performance is usually based on the kind of team
to which they belong. Ballé
(2015) claims that acknowledging teams’ contributions is more
important than focusing on

contributions from individual members.
The sixth practical choice is to fix problems when they occur
and avoid succumbing to a cycle
where people work first and fix later. This allows employees
and leaders to take responsibility
for their part of the system. They need to understand how they
are part of the system (sys-
tems theory) and how each part impacts other parts. Failing to
fix problems immediately can
amplify an issue.
The seventh principle involves seeking continuous improvement
instead of focusing on pro-
cedural stability. Managers should acknowledge that ongoing
improvement is essential for a
sustainable and socially responsible company.
Ballé’s (2015) eighth practical choice is that leaders should
understand work details, instead
of having a mere general overview. A detailed understanding of
work acknowledges that a
leader needs and values others’ expertise. It also acknowledges
that all workers contribute
important understanding to work processes. Leaders are more
likely to handle ethical issues
successfully when they are close to the work and to employees.
The ninth practical decision is to value instruction and
improvement over command and con-
trol behaviors. Lean management systems value nonhierarchical
organizational structures
rather than the command and control often created by a
hierarchy.
The tenth decision involves leaders focusing on value-adding

employees rather than finan-
cial aspects. Ballé (2015) acknowledges that ideas from value-
adding employees constitute
an important asset of any corporation. This leads to treating
employees more ethically and
humanely and acknowledges their contribution. It may also lead
to fairer compensation,
including allowing them to share in the risk of venture. It
essentially suggests that investing
in individuals makes more sense than investing in big ideas
without knowing who or how
they help.
Ballé (2015) discusses the difficulty of imposing such ethics on
any organization. He acknowl-
edges that some employees and managers simply do not want to
work in ways that adhere to
these ideals. However, these choices suggest how management
principles such as Six Sigma
can guide the creation and manufacture of products, as well as
leaders’ humane and ethical
behavior (Ballé, 2015).
Steward for the Environment
Treating others with respect, leading with humility, reducing
pollution and waste, and pro-
tecting the environment by minimizing impact make a business
more efficient—but they also
make it more ethical in terms of humans and the environment.
Implementing these strategies
as well as lean management principles indicates that one is
oriented toward ethical behavior
and focused on being a steward.
In Chapter 1.4 we discussed reducing waste, which led us to the
more in-depth discussion in

Chapter 5.1 about environmental concerns and possible
solutions. In Chapter 6.2 we went
into detail about LCAs and how responsible corporations use
environmental management
systems to reduce impact on the natural environment. These
topics tie together to illustrate
both best practices and actions that people can champion and
even demand for the future.
Next-generation leaders will need to understand the importance
of such practices and apply
lean management techniques; they will also need to implement
continuous improvement to
reduce risk, lower costs, improve quality, raise employee
morale, and reduce operations’ envi-
ronmental footprint.
Nonhierarchical Leadership
In traditional and older views of leadership, a person was a
leader if he or she was at the top
of a hierarchy (a categorization of people ordered by power and
privilege, with lower status
at the bottom and higher status at the top). In such a framework,
if other people worked for
you, reported to you, or even desired to talk to you, you were
considered a leader. Leaders
were given a corresponding title. However, newer notions of
leadership suggest that anyone
from any part of the organizational hierarchy can be a leader if

he or she acts on behalf of the
organization and if he or she forwards the causes that matter to
the majority within the orga-
nization. Under such a paradigm, the new leader could be you.
In this new model of leadership, leaders are not simply
clustered at the top of the organiza-
tion— they are dispersed throughout it. Communication flows
not just through a hierarchy
but is based on need. Older models of leadership reinforced
hierarchies that controlled and
distributed information. For the most part, old models of
leadership depended on singular
individuals framed as heroes and saviors. Margaret Wheatley
and Deborah Frieze (2011) dis-
cuss this issue in their article titled “Leadership in the Age of
Complexity: From Hero to Host.”
They argue that next-generation leaders who advocate for
sustainable systems will more
likely be hosts (people who gather others) rather than heroes
(people who work in relative
isolation). Wheatley and Frieze suggest that humans build
hierarchies and organizations that
are top heavy in order to glorify people above and pass
responsibility on to them. The authors
suggest that, in contrast to such a top-leaning bias, corporate
responsibility is distributed
among all stakeholders—no one should wait for a heroic leader
to stand out. People should
convene others or initiate change themselves.
Like many leadership scholars, Wheatley and Frieze (2011) see
that the complexity of prob-
lems requires leadership at all levels of an organization. But it
may also require fewer levels
in each organization. No longer can we completely trust in the

multilayered hierarchies built
in the past. Hierarchies may block the appropriate flow of
information and disconnect people
who have solutions from the corresponding problems. Thus,
people who want to encourage
more sustainability and social responsibility can work to
promote collaboration and integra-
tion and can eschew hierarchies in which people wait for
permission to act.
Continuous Learning
In addition to reduced reliance on hierarchy, we argue that next-
generation leaders will be
scholars, habitual learners, and those who are always
experimenting with new ideas—such
leaders will also encourage learning organizations (Ancona,
Malone, Orlikowski, & Senge,
2007; Senge, 1990). Continuous learning is consistent with
systems theory, because any
sustainable system must constantly have new information to
adapt to an ever-changing
environment. Information tends to flow into the organization to
and through leaders in the
form of learning. Regarding the value of and interest in
corporate-sponsored education,
Training magazine reports that U.S. corporations now spend
more than $60 billion per year
on training (“2014 Training Industry Report,” 2014). This

number has steadily grown for
decades. In addition, the number of hours that employees spend
in corporate-sponsored
learning is also increasing. The average employee now spends
more than 1 week per year
in company-sponsored training (“2014 Training Industry
Report,” 2014). Next-generation
leaders will likely continue to emphasize continuous learning
for themselves and those
they influence.
Leadership scholar J. B. Ritchie (Ritchie & Hammond, 2005)
discusses the differences between
students and scholars in the article “We (Still) Need a World of
Scholar–Leaders.” He notes that
many teaching practices use the downloading metaphor from
computer science to describe
the relationship between professor and student (Ritchie &
Hammond, 2005). Interestingly,
the downloading metaphor follows the outdated great man
model of leadership, with the
assumption that an employee takes direction from the leader and
the leader expects employ-
ees to implement directions.
As an alternative, Ritchie and Hammond (2005) suggest that
both managers and employees
adopt the purview of scholar by asking questions in anticipation
of learning how to handle
future problems. A scholar acts as if he or she owns the future
and assumes responsibility
for it (Ritchie & Hammond, 2005). This observation implies
that the world needs more lead-
ers who are scholars—versus leaders who want someone else’s
approval. Followers who
are students are abundant, but leaders who assume

responsibility for the behavior of the
whole system, who ask the right questions, and who explore the
key issues—they are rare
and precious.
Which one will you be?
The answer matters greatly to our joint futures, because we
cannot create a more sustainable
and socially responsible future if we behave exactly as we have
in the past. Thus, older leader-
ship paradigms may not serve humanity. Some thought leaders
suggest that people can lead
from anywhere in the organization. This means that employees
no longer need wait until they
achieve positional power to begin moving firms toward socially
responsible and sustainable
actions.
The story of Patagonia and former CEO Yvon Chouinard shows
how some leaders can move
past old paradigms of leadership and old habits of ignoring
environmental issues. The story
paves the way for next-generation leaders (Chouinard, 2005).
Chapter Summary
CSR and Sustainability in Action: Patagonia
In the 1970s CEO Yvon Chouinard founded Patagonia, an
outdoor clothing manufacturing
company. Long before becoming a B corporation (Chapter 7),

the company was one of
the earliest examples of pioneering CSR and sustainability.
Such a focus was important
because clothing manufacturing creates air and water pollution
and generates human
health concerns for workers. To learn about the extent of the
problem at Patagonia,
Chouinard commissioned LCAs (see Chapter 8) on 150 of its
most popular products,
which represent 80% of Patagonia’s sales (Chouinard &
Stanley, 2012). For example,
manufacturing a Patagonia polo shirt emits 21 pounds of carbon
dioxide, which is emitted
when product materials travel from a farm to a warehouse
(Chouinard & Stanley, 2012).
Using this information, Chouinard supported strategies to
increase efficiency in the supply
chain to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and landfill space.
Today Patagonia’s actions to
increase CSR and sustainability include the following:
• Using cotton, down insulation, and wool that can be
traced back to its original
source
• Promoting the idea that consumers should reuse and
recycle Patagonia products
by offering to repair used items
• Offering a living wage and good working conditions for
factory workers
• Participating in fair trade growing and purchasing
behaviors for raw materials
(Patagonia, n.d.)

Patagonia’s success illustrates how a leader can turn passion for
the environment into
business practices that defy current norms, exemplify systems
thinking, and reflect
modern-day leadership.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter we examined traditional views of leadership and
contrasted them with more
modern ideas about distributed leadership. We described how
such early theories can be
inadequate in helping leaders meet the challenge of building
socially responsible and envi-
ronmentally sustainable corporations. Society may need new
ideas about leadership in order
to creatively lead for a different future.
Next-generation leaders will face a world with more connection
and public accountability
for some choices, so men and women who participate in the
workforce will face some of the
challenges described in this chapter. This chapter specifically
addressed characteristics that
may help those who consider themselves as having leadership
potential and opportunities
address ongoing challenges. While these qualities and
considerations are not comprehen-
sive, they do underscore the importance of systems thinking,
collaboration, ethical behavior
through environmental responsibility, global citizenship, and
continuous learning. It is not an
accident that both this chapter and book end on an appeal for
continuous learning. In an ever-
changing world, the only way to keep up with that change is to
constantly learn and respond
in collaboration with others.

Chapter Summary
Posttest
1. The earliest concepts of leadership .
a. emphasized the relationship between social responsibility and
productivity
b. supported environmental sustainability
c. ignored all but the privileged owner class
d. saw leadership as the right of all
2. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership changed many
corporate cultures by
.
a. suggesting that almost anyone can be trained to lead
b. giving opportunity to only those who have the right stuff
c. discriminating against certain classes
d. eliminating the motivation to provide leadership training
3. A systems thinker can .
a. see only the human side of the system and disregard other
factors
b. reduce complexity to a single cause
c. zoom in on single variables
d. understand the vital linkages that make up the whole
4. According to Michael Ballé, the first practical choice of lean
leadership is to .
a. put corporate needs above customer satisfaction

b. put customer satisfaction above corporate needs
c. put employee needs above corporate needs
d. put corporate needs above employee needs
5. Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the text as a
type of problem that next-
generation leaders will need to deal with?
a. waste
b. social inequality
c. systems thinking
d. the rising cost of land
6. The organization of the future is more likely to be .
a. a deep and profound hierarchy
b. a nonhierarchical organization in which everyone has a stake
c. a hierarchical organization in which everyone has a stake
d. a nonhierarchical organization in which no one has a stake
Answers: 1(c); 2(a); 3(d); 4(b); 5(d); 6(b)
Chapter Summary
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Why were so many people so comfortable with the divine
right theory of leadership
for so many years? What historical forces do you think led to
the reexamination of
leadership theory and the development of new theories?
2. Are we moving toward a definition of leadership that

suggests everyone can be a
leader? If so, is that bad? Explain your reasoning.
3. Think about a leader you know. What are his or her positive
traits? Positive behav-
iors? Is he or she a systems thinker?
4. In older theories of leadership, why were women excluded?
How does including
women change our definition of leadership?
5. Can you think of a leader who has exhibited emotional
intelligence? What about one
who has not?
6. What does a systems thinker leader see and do that is
different from a leader who
is not?
7. Why is continuous learning critical to leadership success?
8. Transparency can be considered a good and bad thing. What
are the advantages and
disadvantages of transparency?
Additional Resources
Additional information on leadership theories can be found at:
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Int-
Loc/Leadership-Theories-and-
Studies.html
Learn more about servant leadership here:
https://www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership
Learn more about emotional intelligence and effective
leadership here:

http://www.danielgoleman.info/effective-leaders-know-the-
science-behind-their-behavior/
Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest
1. False. The meaning of leadership has changed, as has the
meaning of sustainability.
2. True. Trait theories of leadership suggested that if a trait
could be identified, it could
be taught.
3. False. Many corporations were used as instruments of
political and social dominance.
Rejoinders to Posttest
1. The early concepts of leadership saw it as a divine right
reserved for privileged
classes.
2. Both theories of leadership opened the door for leadership
training and opportunities
for many individuals.
3. A systems thinker understands the interaction and linkages
between the various ele-
ments that make up an entire system.
Chapter Summary
4. Ballé says being ethical or socially responsible means putting
customer satisfaction

first.
5. The leaders of the future will be faced with many challenges,
but the rising cost of
land is not a major issue and was not addressed in the text.
6. The organization of the future will hold everyone within the
organization responsible
but will also likely provide ownership incentives.
Key Terms
behavioral theories Leadership theo-
ries based on behaviors that can largely be
learned.
collaborative skills Skills that allow one to
work well with other people.
continuous learning A commitment to
lifelong learning regardless of organizational
position.
divine right The assumption that leaders
are made by right of birth and chosen by
God.
emotional intelligence A leadership trait
involving self-awareness and empathy.
global citizen A leader who accounts for
his or her global and local relationships.
great man theory A theory of leadership
that assumes that some elite men are born
to be leaders.

lean management A continuous improve-
ment management philosophy that focuses
on waste reduction.
process theory A leadership theory that
assumes the role of good leaders is to man-
age the whole system.
systems thinker A leader who can see both
large- and small-scale relationships and
connections.
trait theory The theory of leadership that
assumes individual traits can be nurtured
into leadership abilities.
transparency The willingness to work in
full view of all stakeholders or to provide all
information to interested stakeholders.

Corporate Social Responsibility Week 5 Guidance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Corporate Social Responsibility Week 5 Guidance

Similar to Corporate Social Responsibility Week 5 Guidance (19)

More from curwenmichaela

More from curwenmichaela (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Corporate Social Responsibility Week 5 Guidance