The most significant values that should guide a leader’s behaviour include integrity, reliability and service to humanity. The concept of integrity as a value is how well a leader can adhere to ethical values and principles. Integrity measures one’s commitment to what is morally right and doing their duties and responsibilities (Frost, 2014). The value of integrity is applicable both inside work and outside work. It also applies to both an employer and employee. The concept of integrity is more profound in the definition of personal principles that one ought to live by and adhere to through and through (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019; Kraemer Jr, 2015). Integrity in personal and professional life ensures that one lives a scandal-free life and has a good reputation. It is an anchor to personal relations, as well as professional life.
The value of service to humanity is closely tied to considering one’s work in light of the impact made on others (Green Leaf Center for Servant Leadership, 2024). In all realms of leadership, as regards human relations and responsibilities, service to others is the core element in leading (Kraemer Jr, 2015). Dedication to service to humanity transcends job roles and responsibilities. Thus, whether an employer or employee, one ought to value service to others as the most significant concept in leadership. Arguably, the best leaders lead a life of exemplary service – and, through their lives, inspire others to commit themselves to similar goals (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019).
The other core value is reliability. Reliability is arguably one of the most poignant values distinguishing leaders from followers. Reliability is essential in building confidence among the followers (Frost, 2014). The people should feel secure in following their leader and in knowing that there is someone in charge. A leader’s reliability is tested in their capacity to deliver on their promises or to provide leadership in times of crisis. The concept of reliability also applies to employees who can be entrusted with responsibility and more leadership roles. In my personal life, reliability is considered an essential value to maintaining relationships.
Arguably, some other commendable values and theories that are applicable to employees are diligence and accountability (Kraemer Jr, 2015). Diligence is critical to getting work done as well as being productive. A diligent employee will likely be entrusted with responsibility, and more significant assignments. This is essential for earning trust and getting workplace promotions, as performance reviews are likely to reflect in annual evaluations. In addition, accountability is an essential characteristic as it means that one can be entrusted with responsibility. It means that they can work with minimal supervision and, as such, can be put in positions of leadership. In personal life, empathy and openness can be useful in establishing relations, winning friends and fostering strong connections (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019; Kraemer Jr, 2015).
Theories of Leadership
The core values of leadership are service, empathy, and impact. The core leadership theories that relate to these values are servant leadership theory, transformational leadership theory, leader-member exchange theory and contingency leadership theory (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019; Kraemer Jr, 2015). While there are many leadership theories, thesep models form the foundation of value-based leadershi, which alignss well with the core values of service, empathy, impact and reliability. Servant leadership theory focuses on encouraging service as the central motivation of any leader. Indeed, servant leadership uses service to humanity, empathy and impact as the core values driving it (Green Leaf Center for Servant Leadership, 2024).
On the other hand, transformational leadership theory seeks to foster long-term organizational change by influencing the people to initiate change (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019). The concept of transformational leadership is based on long-term goals and vision. Transformational leadership seeks to transform followers into leaders by focusing on impact. Further, the leader-member exchange theory shows that a leader has an inherent impact or influence on the followers and that the relationship forged between the leader and the commitment made by the followers to their leader impacts collaboration and performance (Cropanzano, Dunsborough & Weiss, 2017). The leader-member exchange theory is psychological contract focused as the leader establishes trust with the team by focusing on being reliable (Cropanzano, Dasborough & Weiss, 2017). Similarly, the followers prove themselves to be dedicated through diligence and loyalty. The core values that this model utilizes is loyalty, trust, and impact.
The contingency leadership, or the situational leadership model, is focused on advancing a leader’s or employees ability to act in times of crisis (Donaldson, 2006). The contingency leadership model seeks to enhance decision-making capability and foster reliability and trust among the followers (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019). The leader demonstrates contingency leadership by being able to handle crises. The core values that are utilized here are reliability and decision-making. These two values are useful in promoting stability (Donaldson, 2006; Levy Shankman, Allen & Haber-Curran, 2015). The significance of these values is that they translate into ensuring that a given organization can handle challenges that arise.
Ethical Dilemmas
The core ethical dilemma I went through involved maintaining judicialmaintainingge on handling situational conflicts within the organization while maintainin integrity and good relations. The context of my job requires a good balance between being outrightly bossy and educational to the employees and being an exemplar of the best organizational values. In a way, an arbiter of truth and exemplar of the ideal leadership. Arguably, this is the task of human resource management. The hardest work, often, that any human resource manager has had to deal with is being the enforcer of values or the judge of compliance with organizational ethics. It is the most unpopular position that one finds oneself in, and no amount of training or preparation helps to equip one with skills to handle the various dilemmas that the job presents.
My day that called for the Solomonic was when I received a complaint from a fellow worker, a dynamic and well-balanced fellow, on the conduct of a colleague. The solution would have been easier, but upon establishing the facts, the person accused of misconduct was my friend and work colleague. I have tremendous respect for my friend, and during the two years we have worked in the same organization, I have never had to deal with any case of misconduct. But here we were. There were two possible ends: jeopardising my career credibility by outrightly defending my friend’s reputation without evidence, giving the case the benefit of the doubt, or losing my friendship by ruling in favor of the colleague complainant. Ideally, the human resource manager should make a judgment call. I had previously done that, and there was no legal precedence of doing anything else.
Given the concept of impartiality, I sought to consult my counsellor on handling such a case. They were gracious enough to offer me counsel, which I consider useful. I decided to state that I would be going on leave and thus introduced the necessity for forming a committee to handle the case. That way, I could excuse myself without bringing to the attention the existing conflict of interest I felt. The legal department and the associate manager handled the case in this manner. By this decision, I kept my ethical commitments to the organization and my conscience clear. Later on, after the case was resolved, I maintained both my friend’s warmth and the complainant’s respect; the two are now having a good work relationship.
The choice to step aside and let a panel of independent persons handle the case has been a good call. My ethical stand would have been questioned if I sought to be actively involved in the case. The core values of integrity and impartiality should be maintained in all circumstances. Besides, it is essential to cultivate a culture of trust by showcasing the same values. Further, it is crucial to develop contingency plans and approaches whenever a situation challenges the core decision-making models. The contingency leadership theory calls for being able to develop solutions when under pressure or in cases of dilemma. Contingency leadership promotes reliability and protects the people that one leads from the complexity of organizational politics and leadership. It also accounts for emotionally intelligent leadership (Morris, 2016). In this regard, contingency theory of leadership concepts guide situational leadership, and are useful in testing the efficiency and functionality of leadership concepts.
References
Cropanzano, R., Dasborough, M. T., & Weiss, H. M. (2017). Affective events and the development of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 233-258.
Donaldson, L. (2006). The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. Organization Design: The evolving state-of-the-art, 19-40.
Frost, J. (2014). Values-based leadership. Industrial and commercial training, 46(3), 124-129.
Green Leaf Center for Servant Leadership. (2024). What is servant leadership? Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. https://www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/
Hendrikz, K., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2019). The principled leadership scale: An integration of value-based leadership. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45(1), 1-10.
Kraemer Jr, H. M. J. (2015). Becoming the best: Build a world-class organization through values-based leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Levy Shankman, M., Allen, S. J., & Haber-Curran, P. (2015). Emotionally Intelligent Leadership: A Guide for Students. 2nd Edition
Morris, M. K. (2016). Emotionally Intelligent Leadership: A Guide for Students. Growth: The Journal of the Association for Christians in Student Development, 15(15), 10.
write