University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Leadership in Turbulent Times: A Social Cognitive Study of Responsible Leaders
by
Elizabeth Anne Hume Graswich

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2024

© Copyright by Elizabeth Anne Hume Graswich 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Elizabeth Hume Graswich certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Marc Pritchard
Anthony Maddox
Monique Claire Datta, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The tumult of the early 21
st
century created a need for leaders who act responsibly in times of
crises. Responsible leadership differs from other leadership styles in its attention to the
engagement of diverse stakeholders and decisions that support the common good. In the growing
field of responsible leadership studies, scholars call for more research into the development of
leaders who act responsibly in times of crises. The paper answers that call through Bandura’s
(1986) social cognitive theory as a framework to study the personal, behavioral, and
environmental factors that shape leaders who act responsibly in crises. The study applies a
qualitative approach to data collection through interviews with 10 leaders of public, private, and
nonprofit organizations who demonstrated responsible leadership in crises. The study found role
models and experiences in youth shaped the leaders’ human-centered values. Higher education
had less impact. Participants supported values for common benefit and facilitated communication
with diverse stakeholders. To enhance their leadership skills, participants engaged in self-
reflection and self-regulation. The study findings support four recommendations for the academy
and organizations. Recommendations include reconsideration of current practices of leadership
education and development, and actions that promote hiring practices, professional development,
and social network supports.

Keywords: responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, communication, crisis, social
cognitive theory

v
Dedication
To my husband, R.E. Graswich. In your role as a journalist, through your tough questions
and reporting, you have acted as a responsible leader for the citizens of Sacramento. I am
immensely proud of you and your work. Thank you for always supporting my growth and
development. With you at my side, my dreams continue to turn into reality.

vi
Acknowledgments
The development of an idea, the months of research, and the formulation of the final
product of this dissertation owe acknowledgment to many people. Boundless gratitude goes to
the members of my committee. Chair Dr. Monique Datta believed in me and gave me the
courage to finish each step. Dr. Marc Pritchard provided endless critical guidance that provoked
clarity and restored my confidence after the many times I stumbled down a research rabbit hole.
Dr. Anthony Maddox inspired me to dig deeper and think bigger.
I am beyond grateful to the study participants. Our agreement was anonymity, which
strips their identities of names and place. But you know who you are, not only in this
dissertation, but with your contributions as responsible leaders. Thank you for your wisdom.
A note of gratitude to my classmates and professors who enriched the adventure. A
special thanks to Nilufar Gamini and Dana Kirchman, who adopted me early in the program and
watched over me. I want to thank Dr. Doug Lynch, who engaged with me in the world of ideas,
then brought me back to reality.
I owe gratitude to several remarkable leaders who shaped my personal understanding of
responsible leadership. Dr. Steven M. Ladd first demonstrated the importance of paying attention
to values and people. Dr. Sara Noguchi shared her responsible leadership lessons over many
years. Kirby Hoy provided me an accountability partner in my own development as a leader. The
responsible leadership of Dr. Debra Duardo throughout the COVID-19 pandemic inspired me to
pursue this subject at a doctoral level.
Immense gratitude goes to my former boss, mentor, and friend Arturo Valdez, who
believed in my potential as a leader and convinced me to pursue a doctoral degree.

vii
I am thankful for my two sons, William Graswich and Robert Graswich, who not only lift
me up daily with care and support but also fuel my efforts to fight for a better tomorrow.
Finally, I am grateful to my father, Edward C. Hume. You taught me to write and
instilled in me a love of reading and research that shaped my life’s trajectory.
Thank you all.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 5
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 9
Turbulent Times That Lead to Crises ................................................................................. 9
Current Trends .................................................................................................................. 12
Responsible Leadership Theory ........................................................................................ 19
Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................................................... 25
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 38
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 40
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 40
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 40
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 41

ix
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 41
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 43
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 43
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 44
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 45
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 46
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 46
Ethics ............................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 48
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 48
Findings Research Question One ...................................................................................... 49
Discussion Research Question One .................................................................................. 56
Findings Research Question Two ..................................................................................... 57
Discussion Research Question Two .................................................................................. 66
Findings Research Question Three ................................................................................... 67
Discussion Research Question Three ................................................................................ 74
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 74
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 76
Recommendation 1: Responsible Leadership in Higher Education ................................. 77
Recommendation 2: Hire Responsible Leaders ................................................................ 79
Recommendation 3: Experiential Learning for Responsible Leadership ......................... 80
Recommendation 4: Responsible Leadership Social Networks ....................................... 82
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 83

x
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 84
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 85
References ..................................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 102

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Demographics ........................................................................................... 49
Table A1: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................... 102

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 38
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Geopolitical upheavals, climate change, social inequality, and disruptive technologies
create unstable and capricious environments (Ansell et al., 2020; Pless et al., 2021) where
leadership decisions either fortify or undermine organizational stability and reputation (Pearson
& Clair, 1998; Ulmer, 2020). As the recent history of a global pandemic, social unrest, and the
impact of climate change demonstrated, crises arrive quickly and often without warning. When
organizations failed to cultivate and hire responsible leaders, they sacrificed opportunities to
guide followers and institutions through turbulent times (Pless & Schneider, 2022). Despite
interest among academic researchers and organizations in the need to better prepare leaders to
manage turbulent events, a gap exists between leadership scholarship and the actions leaders take
in the field (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2021).
Recent crises illuminated leaders who acted out of self-interest and failed to consider and
engage a diverse set of stakeholders (Clegg et al., 2021). In 2020, Bill Johnson, chief executive
of Pacific Gas & Electric Company, pleaded guilty in California on behalf of his organization to
more than 80 felony counts after a neglected tower and broken transmission line led to the deaths
of 84 people in the Paradise Camp Fire (Penn & Eavis, 2020). Mismanagement of the COVID-
19 pandemic exposed defective policies of Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro, who demonstrated
slow reactions and prioritized political interests above the safety of followers (Clegg et al., 2021;
Maak et al., 2021; Uhl-Bien, 2021). Sanctions followed Wells Fargo bank (Schroeder & Dilts
Marshall, 2021) more than 5 years after CEO John Stumpf resigned over management of a
customer abuse scandal (Veetikazhi & Krishnan, 2019). Such leadership failures accentuated the
need for research into the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that shape responsible
leaders who navigate contemporary crises and create hope for the future (Maak et al., 2021). The
2

study addresses the lack of knowledge about the forces that shape responsible leaders who guide
public and private organizations through crises.
Context and Background of the Problem
The crises of the 21
st
century led to calls for leaders who make decisions that reflect
responsibility to society and the diverse constituencies they serve (Maak & Pless, 2022a). Since
2000, economic, health, environmental, and social justice crises induced a forfeiture of public
trust and created challenges for leaders (Muff et al., 2022). While the COVID-19 pandemic
brought urgency to crisis management on a global level, opportunities for catastrophe abound in
data breaches, misinformation, terrorism, inequities, climate change, and poverty (Tsui, 2022).
An atmosphere of public polarization across an expansive range of political, social, and
economic issues further complicates the landscape (University of Southern California Annenberg
School for Communication and Journalism, 2022).
Turbulence since 2000 emphasized the critical need for leaders who exhibit beliefs and
behaviors necessary to navigate complex environments (Clegg et al., 2021; Maak et al., 2021).
Contemporary stakeholders expect leaders to guide with purpose and commitment to a better
future (Edelman, 2022; Maak & Pless, 2022a). Furthermore, they want leaders to acknowledge
controversial issues and champion values that benefit society (Edelman, 2022). Responsible
leadership embraces these goals and distinguishes itself from other leadership theories in its
attention to a purpose-driven, interactive relationship process between a leader and a divergent
set of stakeholders, alongside a commitment to values that support the betterment of society and
the greater good (Pless et al., 2021). Modern global challenges inspired an interest in responsible
leadership professional development, as well as research into factors that shape leaders who take
actions for societal benefit and engage diverse followers during crises (Maak et al., 2021; Tsui,
3

2022). While accountability mechanisms such as laws and policies constrain maneuverability,
individual leaders hold significant leeway in decisions (Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).
Organizations have recognized the need to support leaders who conduct institutions and
followers through turbulent environments with actions that enhance society (Pless et al., 2021).
In 2003, the European Foundation of Management Development called for responsible
leadership after organizational failures at the start of the new century (European Foundation of
Management Development, n.d.; Pless & Maak, 2011). The request led to the establishment of
Principles of Responsible Leadership Management Education (PRME) in 2007, an extension of
the United Nations (UN) Global Compact, centered on responsible leadership development
(Aspling, 2022; Pless & Maak, 2011). In addition, the introduction in 2015 of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Muff et al., 2022) led to an expansion in corporate
social responsibility initiatives (Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014). Inspired by a 2017 World
Leadership Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on responsible leadership, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink
called on CEOs to serve as responsible leaders (Pless et al., 2021; Tsui, 2022). Interest in
responsible leadership continues to grow; however, multiple definitions and approaches to
responsible leadership theory cloud the research (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018; Muff et al., 2022;
Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014). Scholars agree on the need to better understand factors that shape
and inform responsible leaders (Miska & Mendenhall; Tsui, 2022; Waldman et al., 2020), and to
recognize the components that support the development of responsible senior executives
(Castillo et al., 2020).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to examine the personal traits, behaviors, and environments
of leaders who act responsibly in times of crises. The field-based study explores the perceptions
4

of public, private, and nonprofit organizational leaders who have navigated a crisis with a
commitment to stakeholder engagement and decisions that benefit society as defined by at least
one of the 17 UN SDGs. With social cognitive theory (SCT) as the overarching framework, the
study sought to fill a gap in responsible leadership scholarship. The following questions guided
the study:
1. How do leaders who demonstrate responsible leadership in times of crises perceive
their personal beliefs?
2. How do responsible leaders perceive their behaviors?
3. How do leaders who demonstrate responsible leadership in times of crises describe
their environmental influences?
Importance of the Study
Despite enhanced interest in responsible leadership and the need to support professional
development, a demand exists for additional research to evolve the definition of responsible
leadership theory (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018; Tsui, 2022; Voegtlin et al., 2019). Continued
turbulence propelled scholars’ attention toward the critical need for responsible leaders who
demonstrate beliefs and behaviors that help stakeholders and their organizations navigate today’s
complex environments (Maak et al., 2021; Tsui, 2022). Within the vortex of business and
commerce, responsible leadership emerged as a key managerial attribute. However, the
definition of the theory continues to lack clarity (Maak & Pless, 2022a). Scholars agree that
responsible leadership differs from other leadership theories in its focus on a purpose-driven,
interactive relationship process between a leader and a diverse set of stakeholders, and a
commitment to values that support the betterment of society and the greater good (Pless et al.,
2021). Voegtlin et al.’s (2019) study demonstrated a positive relationship among responsible
5

leadership and employee perceptions of leadership effectiveness, stakeholders’ positive opinions
of leaders, and employee engagement. Furthermore, the current political and economic climates
prompted an evaluation of the need to better prepare leaders for roles they will need to master as
they operate in tumultuous times (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2021; Uhl-Bien, 2021). Notwithstanding
this need, a gap persists between leadership scholarship and theories, and the actions leaders take
in the field (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2021).
Significant literature published since 2000 centers on corporate social responsibility and
leaders who concentrate on stakeholder interests (Tsui, 2022). Few studies include empirical
research on the antecedents that shape responsible leaders (Maak et al., 2021; Voegtlin et al.,
2019; Waldman, 2022). Furthermore, scholars note the lack of empirical research relevant to
responsible leaders during crises (Maak et al., 2021; Pless et al., 2021; Stahl & Sully de Luque,
2014; Tsui, 2022). Maak and Pless (2022a) explained valuable stories abound within the
contextual development of responsible leaders, and those stories warrant research. Leaders are
not born, but rather made (Castillo et al., 2020; Maak & Pless, 2022a). Leadership research often
concentrates on an individual’s traits and overlooks the complex impact of interactions among
parallel actors within the context of time and setting (Clegg et al., 2021), as well as personal
values and motivational drivers (Maak & Pless, 2022a). Research on the beliefs, behaviors, and
environments that contribute to responsible leadership can enhance the design of educational
programs that support leader development (Castillo et al., 2020; Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The study used Bandura’s (1986) SCT, which states human behavior and learning exist
within a dynamic and reciprocal interaction between personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors (Wood & Bandura, 1989). The elements include personal components such as thoughts,
6

beliefs, and self-efficacy; behavioral aspects of choice, persistence, and effort; and
environmental proxies such as culture, social interactions, and personal background. Through
self-reflection and regulation, individuals control beliefs, actions, and emotions, and thus impact
the ecosystem of learning and behavior (Schunk & Usher, 2019). SCT recognizes the influence
of modeling on mental, social, and behavioral abilities; self-efficacy on performance; and goal
setting on self-motivation (Bandura, 1988). The theory details how human agency occurs on
individual and collective levels; how interactions between individuals and stakeholders have
reciprocal impacts on outcomes; and how self-reflection contributes to growth (Wood &
Bandura, 1989).
SCT provides a conceptual framework to examine the personal traits, behaviors, and
environments of leaders who exhibited responsible behaviors during a crisis. Clegg et al. (2021)
pointed to the need for research to examine the reciprocal relationship between environmental
conditions and the behavior and beliefs of a leader. Responsible leadership behavior takes place
in a situational environment impacted by an individual’s personal characteristics (Pless, 2007;
Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014). These characteristics reveal a leader’s values and commitment to
serve others, as well as behaviors that demonstrate vision and engagement with stakeholders, all
of which reflect an individual’s past and current environments (Pless, 2007). This study looked at
responsible leaders in times of crises through their perceptions of personal factors of values and
self-efficacy; behavioral factors of goal setting, self-regulation, and stakeholder engagement; and
environmental factors of education, role models, and organizational culture.
The study used a qualitative approach that relied upon data collection to understand the
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors of responsible leaders. The research included a
list of predetermined questions that allowed for flexibility in semi-structured interviews. Study
7

subjects included 10 leaders of public, private, and nonprofit organizations who managed a
crisis, and demonstrated responsible leadership behaviors.
Definition of Terms
The following definition of terms provides clarity related to key words or phrases used
throughout the paper.
Responsible Leadership Theory
Responsible leadership theory explains leaders who make decisions based on values that
support the betterment of society and reflect engagement with, and in the interests of, diverse
sets of internal and external stakeholders (Maak & Pless, 2006b).
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
SCT explains human behavior as the result of the reciprocal relationship between an
individual’s personal beliefs, actions, and environment (Bandura, 1988).
Turbulence
Turbulence refers to volatile, unexpected, and inconsistent events in the environment
(Ansell et al., 2020).
UN SDGs
The UN published the SDGs in 2015 as part of the release of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. The 17 SDGs and related 169 targets seek to improve human life and
the planet (UN, 2015).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows the organization of a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One
introduces the problem of the lack of knowledge about forces that shape responsible leaders in
times of crises, an overview of the fundamental concepts of SCT as a theoretical framework, the
8

methodology for the study, as well as key definitions. In addition, Chapter One outlines the
importance of the study, the methodology, and research questions. Chapter Two provides the
context of the current turbulent environment faced by today’s leaders, with specifics on the
environments produced by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and racial inequities.
Chapter Two further offers a literature review on responsible leadership theory and SCT as a
conceptual framework and explains how these two theories apply to the problem of practice
under study. Chapter Three details the research methodology for the study. Elements of Chapter
Three include an overview of the design of the study, the research setting, data sources, study
participants, data collection and analysis, and limitations of the study. Chapter Four examines
and analyzes the findings of the qualitative interviews. The dissertation concludes with Chapter
Five, which presents the findings based on the literature, as well as proposed recommendations.

9

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Leaders face perpetually shifting conditions that, if mishandled, can lead to instability
and crisis (Costanza et al., 2016). Leaders must reduce uncertainty and help stakeholders
navigate challenges and distrust through a vision of an improved future, with the engagement of
a diverse set of followers (Maak & Pless, 2006b). Maak and Pless (2022a) argued turbulent
environments require a different type of leader, a responsible individual who guides with a
philosophy balanced on objectives that rise above personal interests and identify improvements
to benefit a wide range of engaged stakeholders. Responsible leadership embodies the
willingness to address diverse stakeholders and their multitude of needs, such as the creation of
inclusive environments where all people feel seen, heard, and valued (Maak & Pless, 2006b).
SCT creates an opportunity to study the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors
that shape responsible leaders. Maak and Pless (2022a) observed individuals are not born into the
world with the commitment, skills, and knowledge needed for responsible leadership. The
scholars further asserted that education, training, and organizational environments combine to
impact an individual’s ability to lead. Social cognitive theory supplies a means to evaluate the
personal, behavioral, and environmental elements that co-create an individual’s actions
(Bandura, 1988). The following literature review discusses the current environment, responsible
leadership theory, and SCT to frame this study of responsible leaders who successfully navigated
turbulent times.
Turbulent Times That Lead to Crises
Scholars agree that leadership takes places today in a unique, turbulent environment
shaped by man-made and natural factors. Although scholars identified turbulent environments as
a leadership challenge long before the start of the 21st century (Cameron et al., 1987),
10

innovations in technology and communications, political polarization, and global conditions led
to increased societal paroxysms (Ansell et al., 2020; George et al., 2016). Ansell et al. (2020)
asserted the term “turbulence” appeared in physics to describe chaos related to fluids, such as
sheets of rain in a storm, or an unpredictable river (Ansell et al., 2020). In the 1960s,
organizational scholars began to connect the word to the management of complexity. The authors
explained the expression migrated into leadership academic nomenclature when an originator of
contemporary management literature, Peter Drucker, published a book titled Managing in
Turbulent Times in 1980 (Drucker, 1993). Udwadia and Mitroff (1991) wrote of the increased
frequency of man-made problems that led to crisis situations in direct correlation with increases
in technology-driven social networks and information transfers. Two decades later, Ansell et al.
(2020) broadened the parameters of turbulence with the notion that strategies once used to
manage crisis situations, which included foresight, protection, and resilience, no longer sufficed
in today’s environment. The passage of time and accumulated study convinced scholars that
leaders should view turbulence as a continuous burden for future generations, not as a temporary
occurrence.
Turbulent problems refer to events that exhibit characteristics of surprise, disruption,
volatility, ambiguity, or incongruity (Ansell et al., 2020), and lead to uncertainty (Cameron et al.,
1987), crises, and disasters (Costanza et al., 2016). Cameron et al.’s (1987) study demonstrated
turbulence may result in centralized decisions, a focus on short-term as opposed to long-term
plans, loss of credibility, and leadership changes. The research suggested the impact of
turbulence fell on the shoulders of administrators. Faced with turbulence, leaders often lacked a
clear image of the problem they faced and the knowledge to address it (Ansell et al., 2020; Uhl-
Bien, 2021). Effective management of turbulence requires leaders to collaborate with diverse
11

stakeholders, identify innovative solutions, and demonstrate agility to adapt to shifts in
information and the environment (Ansell at al., 2020).
Leadership and organizational scholars use terms beyond turbulence to describe today’s
capricious environment. In years past, Peters (2017) showed how social science researchers used
the term “wicked problems” (p. 385). The phrase initially referred to misalignment in policy
problems and analysis. While wicked problems relate to unexpected events, the term differs from
turbulence in that wicked problems follow predictable, manageable patterns (Ansell et al., 2020).
Other scholars use terms such as “brittle, anxious, nonlinear, and incomprehensible” (BANI);
“rapid, unpredictable, paradoxical, and tangled” (RUPT); and “turbulent, uncertain, novel, and
ambiguous” (TUNA) to explain today’s societal environment (Ross et al., 2022, p. 16).
Some responsible leadership scholars apply the term “grand societal challenges” to
describe deep, widespread societal issues such as a pandemic, climate change, and inequities that
breach national borders and negatively impact large populations, if not the planet itself (V oegtlin
et al., 2022, p. 1). The UN SDGs offered an example of grand societal challenges with their
volatile and complicated characteristics (Oliver et al., 2022). As with turbulent events, grand
societal challenges involve complexity and uncertainty, but contrast in their focus on values
(V oegtlin et al., 2022). Responsible leadership scholars also employ the term “volatility,
uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity” (VUCA), first adopted by the U.S. Army War College (Ross
et al., 2022, p. 16), to explain the tumultuous environment faced by modern leaders (Pless &
Schneider, 2022). While each of these phrases reflect the churn of contemporary conditions, the
present study employed the term turbulence.
As scholars sought to understand turbulence, crisis scholarship presented several lessons
(Ansell et al., 2020). Pearson and Clair (1998) asserted poor management of turbulence may
12

create a crisis, and managerial nonfeasance in a crisis occurs when leaders fail to take
appropriate action. The scholars observed organizational crises became recognized as unlikely
but consequential events, surrounded by ambiguity related to the cause, impact, and resolution,
which threaten organizational stability and require quick decisions. Moreover, organizational
crises demand an internal and external response to navigate emotion, uncertainty, and complexity
(Udwadia & Mitroff, 1991). These characteristics may lead to cognitive overload for individuals
as they fail to process information (Pearson & Clair, 1998; Udwadia & Mitroff, 1991). The
cognitive overload, in turn, portends a lack of sense making, a breakdown in social roles and an
evaporation of confidence in leadership.
Pearson and Clair (1998) argued crises cover a spectrum of events, from financial such as
extortion, bribery, and counterfeiting, to deadly such as pandemics, natural disasters, and terrorist
attacks. Effective crises management requires leaders to engage stakeholders to imbue a
collective sense-making and role definition. A well-managed crisis leads to the resumption of
normal operations, the diminishment of financial and human loss, and growth (Pearson & Clair,
1998). However, traditional approaches lose viability in the quest to manage difficult conditions
before they evolve into crisis (Ansell et al., 2020). The events of the 21
st
century prompted
organizations and scholars alike to call for a new model of leadership and further research into
the antecedents that shape leaders equipped to direct organizations through turbulent times
(Maak et al., 2021; Miska & Mendenhall, 2018; Tsui, 2022). Political, societal, and economic
upheavals since 2020 offered insights into leadership challenges and opportunities.
Current Trends
Leaders face challenges that transcend land boundaries, cultural settings, and
organizations, and ultimately require complex decisions to ensure the least amount of disruption
13

to their economic and operational environments. Events since 2020 aimed a spotlight toward
leadership challenges (Clegg et al., 2021; Tsui, 2022). Circumstances such as a global pandemic,
the effects of climate change, and racial inequities exist as threats to society and opportunities for
responsible leaders to step forward and take actions on behalf of constituents, customers,
communities, states, nations, and the planet (Tsui, 2022). Such challenges test a leader’s values
and require self-reflection and regulation (Ulmer, 2020). Contemporary difficulties faced by
leaders underscore how leadership does not manifest in isolation, but rather requires co-creation
with followers (Clegg et al., 2021; Uhl-Bien, 2021; Ulmer, 2020). To navigate upheavals
propelled by current events, leaders seek out stakeholder thoughts and opinions to co-create a
vision to guide organizations through turbulence (Ulmer, 2020). In this environment, leaders
suffuse into their followers a hope for the future to endure and survive (Maak et al., 2021). The
recent alignment of crises as manifested by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and racial
inequities offer exemplars of challenges faced by leaders today.
COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic provided an unprecedented example of a leadership challenge
that spanned nations, industries, and peoples. On December 31, 2019, the hints of what would
become a global pandemic surfaced as the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission in China
reported an apparent cluster of pneumonia-related cases (Clegg et al., 2021). Reports shifted a
day later, when the World Health Organization (WHO) established an Incident Management
Support Team. By the end of January, WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of
International Concern (Clegg et al., 2021), and on March 11, 2020, a global outbreak (Haque,
2021). Over the ensuing months and years, the COVID-19 pandemic caused chaos and death
across the globe, with 6.8 million lives lost as of February 2023 (WHO, 2023). The impact on
14

economies created unprecedented challenges for governments, businesses, and schools (Clegg et
al., 2021). Maak et al. (2021) concluded that, while the ultimate outcome remains unknown at
this writing, the pandemic highlighted the importance of leadership in times of crises. COVID-19
demonstrated why leaders need to learn through engagement with stakeholders and adapt.
The pandemic provided examples of failed leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2021) and leadership
success (Maak et al., 2021). The United States and United Kingdom ranked first and second in
the October 2019 Global Health Index as most prepared for rapid response and mitigation of an
epidemic (Global Health Index, 2019). Despite this status, both nations struggled to supply their
populations with equipment and regulations for mitigation early in the pandemic (Uhl-Bien,
2021; Unruh et al., 2022). The United States, under the administration of President Donald
Trump, blundered in the mobilization of testing, ventilators, and personal protective equipment
to the population (Uhl-Bien, 2021). One year after the pandemic started, the United States, which
represents 5% of the global population, experienced 20% of total deaths worldwide. In the
United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson initially followed a herd immunity strategic
approach. The United Kingdom’s rate of deaths as related to total population exceeded that of the
United States, with 1,776 deaths per million people, compared with 1,507 deaths per million in
the United States. By contrast, Vietnam, which closed its borders within a week after discovery
of its first case, had 35 deaths total, effectively zero per million people. New Zealand Prime
Minister Jacinda Ardern adopted a different approach. She created a four-tier alert system and
coordinated resources and responses. New Zealand experienced 26 deaths total, or 5 per million
people (Uhl-Bien, 2021).
Maak et al. (2021) and Uhl-Bien (2021) tracked distinct responses and subsequent
outcomes during the pandemic back to leadership decisions. Leaders who successfully guided
15

their countries though the crisis demonstrated the ability to adapt. Further, those successful chief
executives showed how crisis leadership transpired in concert with followers who co-created the
adaptive responses. The lessons of the pandemic demonstrated that crises require leaders ready to
adapt to a tumultuous environment, listen to stakeholders with an open mind, and co-create
solutions (Maak et al., 2021; Uhl-Bien, 2021). Although the impacts of COVID-19 consumed
much of the energy in recent crisis leadership studies, many scholars shifted their attention to the
detrimental impact of climate change as the world emerged from a global pandemic.
Climate Change
While the urgency of the pandemic subsided, leaders faced a crisis of climate change that
gained momentum in recognition but had not developed into a critical call for leadership and
opportunities to reduce inequitable impacts. In 2020, as the pandemic moved across borders, the
impact of climate change communicated its urgency though multiple environmental catastrophes.
High temperatures and bush fires raged across Australia. In North America, extreme winter
storms battered the eastern, southern, and central portions of the United States and Canada
(Clegg et al., 2021). California faced a series of climate-related crises, including historic drought,
deadly forest fires, and winter rainstorms that led to flooding and fatalities. Extreme weather
events invoked devastation on several levels as the loss of lives and disruption to communities
created long-term societal and fiscal burdens (Beck, 2023).
Complex factors influenced weather events and natural disasters; however, human
behavior relevant to climate change contributed to extreme temperatures, increased precipitation,
and severe droughts, which led to financial damages, decreased job productivity, and death
(Clarke et al., 2022). The UN identified climate change with a Code Red warning in its
Sustainable Development Goal Report 2022 (UN, 2022). The report described a dire future, with
16

the global annual mean temperature projected to rise 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (1850 to
1900). Presently, between 3 to 3.6 billion people around the world live in areas highly
susceptible to climate change (UN, 2022). Additional predictions postulated approximately one-
third of the planet would experience at minimum a moderate drought by the year 2100, while
700 million people would be at risk for a drought that forced them to leave their homes by 2030
(UN, 2022). Displacements of such magnitude often bring inequitable impacts to vulnerable
populations.
Leaders face multiple challenges relevant to climate change. Inequities stand prominent
among them. In the United States, where a history of systemic racism and social inequities
affected where people who experienced marginalization live and work, the impacts of climate
change disproportionately impact people of color (Smith et al., 2022). In addition, a history of
housing covenants and red-lined neighborhoods led to the segregation of people of color and
those with lower levels of income into neighborhoods often hardest hit by natural disasters
(Smith et al., 2022). Scholars refer to this segregation as the climate gap (Morello-Frosch &
Obasogie, 2023), a condition that leads to unequal impacts on the health of people of color and
low-income both through natural disasters and air pollution created by fossil fuels. Grubb et al.
(2022) concluded equity and social justice concerns warrant consideration as central tenet of
climate action policies, but solutions involve complex impacts on communities. The authors
further asserted wealth enhances the ability to enact solutions; however, solutions may have
unintended impacts on marginalized communities.
To mitigate these challenges, Shukla et al. (2022) reported the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change suggested leaders could improve negative trajectories through responsible
actions. The authors noted proposals included the creation of goals focused on policies and
17

systems to reduce emissions with an objective toward equity, and the engagement of multiple
stakeholders across all levels of society. Crosweller and Tschakert (2021) demonstrated decision-
making and policies associated with climate-related disaster management improved when leaders
acknowledged vulnerability and compassion in discussions with stakeholders. Furthermore,
leadership that impacts climate change may lead to the reduction in other grand challenges
recognized by the SDGs, such as poverty, hunger, and inequities.
Racial Inequities
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic and environmental disasters, a reckoning of racial history
gained momentum in the United States. The killing of a Black man, George Floyd, by a White
police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, ignited a series of protests and led to challenges by
community members to law enforcement budgets on municipal, county, and state levels
throughout the nation (Mitroff & Kilmann, 2021). In addition to raising public awareness of
police funding, practices, hiring, and cultures, the murder of Floyd provoked examinations of
inequities suffered by people of color who encountered law enforcement authorities in the United
States (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP], 2023).
According to the NAACP (2023), police are 5 times more likely to stop a Black person than a
White person without just cause, while 65% of Black adults and 35% of Latinx and Asian adults
reported they felt targeted by law enforcement officers due to their race. Examinations of police
conduct at encounters with people of color became a fundamental intent of the Black Lives
Matter movement, which sought to prevent White supremacy and acts of violence against Black
individuals and other people of color in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada (Black
Lives Matter, n.d.).
18

While the impact of Floyd’s death established the importance of one individual’s life, the
COVID-19 pandemic exposed intrinsic societal inequities by disproportionally affecting racial
minorities and underserved ethnic groups in the United States. Zalla et al. (2021) asserted
COVID-19, as with several previous infectious diseases, inordinately impacted underrepresented
groups in the United States. Evidence of structural racism surfaced as scholars examined
convergent examples of police brutality and health care inequity (Tinson, 2017; Zalla et al.,
2021). Documentation of structural racism extended beyond infectious diseases to include
societal constructs that influenced where people of color lived, worked, and recreated, and thus
positioned them at higher risks of exposure, infection, and death (Zalla et al., 2021).
Environmental and social conditions often evolved from federal, state, and local housing
policies (Rothstein, 2017), some of which dated from the forced relocation of indigenous
Americans and the enslavement of persons of African ancestry in the United States (Spring,
2010; Zalla et al., 2021). Other policies, such as housing redlines and segregated communities,
reduced or prevented resource allocations in education, employment, and healthcare from
reaching neighborhoods of color (Rothstein, 2017; Zalla et al., 2021). Zalla et al. (2021) focused
on a primary example of structural racism as related to geographic place. Communities of color
often lacked modern, high-quality parks and healthy food options. The scholars further
determined redlining policies rendered minority neighborhoods ineligible for home mortgage
loans. Such policies hindered homeownership, long considered an incubator of familial wealth.
Zoning policies and environmental regulations relevant to industrial operations and
manufacturing sites often placed facilities in or near neighborhoods of color, contributing to poor
air quality and pollution (Zalla et al., 2021).
19

Although inequities existed for centuries, Ulmer (2020) wrote recent events forced many
leaders and organizations to pause, reflect on their practices and personal biases, and honor
diversity. He further shared this consideration included a recognition and commitment to
understand intersectionality, and how individuals convey multiple identities. White people have
begun to acknowledge the need to encourage and support people of color in paths to leadership,
with an increased number of organizations implementing policies in support of diversity, equity,
and inclusion (Dupree & Fiske, 2019; Erskine & Bilimoria, 2019). Despite appearances of
progress at the leadership level, superficial shifts reflected outward displays of enlightenment,
but masked more subtle biases and behaviors (Dupree & Fiske, 2019). Indeed, disparities
continued in the workplace as Afro-Diasporic women reported increased negative stereotypes
and disproportionalities in professional development and advancement opportunities (Erskine &
Bilimoria, 2019). To address traditional and pervasive inequities requires leaders attuned to the
betterment of society and the acknowledgement of diverse viewpoints.
Responsible Leadership Theory
Challenges such as racial inequities, climate change, and an unprecedented global
pandemic led to consideration on the need for a different type of leader and the development of
responsible leadership theory. In this tumultuous environment, responsible leadership theory
materialized as organizations grappled with challenges and turned to scholars for answers (Maak
& Pless, 2022a; Tsui, 2022). Responsible leadership emerged in leadership literature of the
1990s, with the work of Julie Bell White Newman (MacTaggart & Lynham, 2018). Maak and
Pless (2022b) explained the theory gained traction in the early 21
st
century after the Enron
scandal, when a Texas energy company perceived as forward thinking and a positive place to
work dissolved into chaos and bankruptcy due to irresponsible leadership. Similar crises
20

subsequently occurred at other business organizations, ignited by leadership decisions that
exposed an absence of responsibility (Maak et al., 2021). Today, many investors, employees,
customers, and constituents expect to understand how actions by leaders of businesses, civic
organizations, and governments benefit society and stakeholders (Mirvis et al., 2022). The
widespread questioning of leadership, stimulated by crises in business and government, led to
discussions among scholars as to whether leadership theories adequately addressed the
challenges of a global, connected, and turbulent world (Pless & Maak, 2011).
In an often-cited paper that created a roadmap for subsequent works on responsible
leadership theory (Marques et al., 2018; Miska & Mendenhall, 2018), Maak and Pless (2006b)
stated turbulent times require leaders who provide a vision for the future, and thereby manage
complexities and uncertainties for stakeholders. Maak et al. (2021) later offered that responsible
leadership theory describes a leader who uses personal traits and behaviors to understand and
navigate a diffusive environment in a crisis. The authors declared that in a crisis environment, a
responsible leader becomes an orchestrator of events and people. When the world reached the
one-millionth death from COVID-19 in 2020, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said
simply, “Responsible leadership matters” (UN News, 2020, para. 6). Despite the need for
responsible leadership in turbulent times, little evidence-based scholarship exists to support the
knowledge of such leaders in times of crises (Tsui, 2022).
Indeed, scholarship on responsible leadership remains in its infancy, buoyed by a variety
of definitions shared among scholars (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018; Tsui, 2022; Voegtlin et al.,
2019; Waldman, 2022). Academic debates about the definition of responsible leadership march
forward (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018; Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014; Waldman et al., 2020).
Maak and Pless (2006b) presented one commonly cited definition: “Responsible leadership is a
21

relational and ethical phenomenon, which occurs in social processes interaction with those who
affect or are affected by leadership and have a stake in the purpose and vision of the leadership
relationship” (p. 103). Pless et al. (2021) further described responsible leadership as a
manifestation of two specific leadership behaviors. First, responsible leadership expands the
follower group from the traditional direct reports to include a broad set of internal and external
stakeholders who leaders engage with, feel a sense of responsibility for, and exert influence over
to achieve objectives. Second, responsible leaders reveal a deep commitment to this broad set of
stakeholders and involve them in proactive decision-making to do good in the world.
Responsible leadership theory differs from other leadership theories in its recognition that
leaders need to engage beyond their primary organizational duties and staff and reach
constituents who may have contrasting values and may expect leaders to provide more value for
society in general (Maak & Pless, 2022a; MacTaggart & Lynham, 2018; Pless et al., 2021;
Voegtlin et al., 2019; Waldman et al., 2020). Leadership theories traditionally focused on an
individual’s behavior as it related to actions and persuasion of internal followers (Pless et al.,
2021). Waldman and Galvin (2008) believed the distinction of responsible leadership theory
resided in its recognition of leaders who, prior to decisions, considered their responsibility not
only for their actions, but to the needs of diverse stakeholders. Under this definition, a
responsible leader surveys the landscape to identify constituents, listens to comprehend concerns,
and acts with integrity on the group’s behalf (Maak & Pless, 2022a). Leader and follower co-
create shared meanings and motivate one another (Pless, 2007).
Responsible leaders underscore their actions with a values-based vision of a better world
(Pless, 2007). Rather than make decisions prioritized to support the organization’s bottom line,
and while eschewing self-aggrandizement, responsible leadership relies on decisions for the
22

common good (Maak & Pless, 2022a; Pless et al., 2021; Voegtlin et al., 2022; Waldman et al.,
2020). The values-based vision of responsible leaders recognized and considered humanity,
tolerance, honesty, transparency, fairness, sustainability, solidarity, freedom, and sustainability
(Aspling, 2022). As such, responsible leadership promotes the betterment of humanity
(MacTaggart & Lynham, 2018).
The UN Global Compact and the closely aligned UN SDGs reinforced the need for
leaders who embraced values that supported economic, societal, and environmental advancement
(Mirvis et al., 2022; Muff et al., 2022). Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, global
capitalism led to a greater sense of universal problems (Wuffli, 2022). Leaders and researchers
from many global sectors began to acknowledge the need to come together to mitigate grand
societal challenges that created societal and environmental threats (Voegtlin et al., 2022). These
challenges led to the UN’s establishment in 2000 of eight Millennium Development Goals for
2015, replaced in 2015 with the 17 SDGs for 2030 (Wuffli, 2022). In a historic moment for the
UN, 193 member states voted to support the 17 goals and their related 169 targets aimed at
completion by 2030 (George et al., 2016).
Oliver et al. (2022) emphasized the UN’s 17 goals offer the most comprehensive account
of the grand societal challenges leaders face today. The goals address a range of issues from
inequities, education, climate, and health to poverty and hunger (UN, 2022). Furthermore, Saks
(2022) explained the authors of the SDGs recognized that battles to overcome poverty and social
injustices require an emphasis on education, health, job development, and the environment.
Sustainability occupies the center of these goals, alongside the need to act in a collective and
coordinated effort (George et al., 2016). Responsible leadership theory embraced the 17 SDGs
23

(Saks, 2022). The goals themselves brought attention to responsible leadership and the need to
develop related competencies (Muff et al., 2022).
Waldman and Galvin (2008) remarked that many leadership theories exist, such as
transformational, servant, shared, and ethical. However, each lacks responsibility, an orientation
essential to effective leadership. Responsibility at its core implies an individual possesses the
ability to control their own actions in a desire to do right by others. Responsible behavior denotes
a leader who cares about the interests of stakeholders, feels an obligation to act on behalf of
people, and accepts accountability for those actions (Waldman & Galvin, 2008). Maak and Pless
(2009) relied on Young’s (2006) essay to anchor the justification that leaders hold a
responsibility to co-create solutions to solve world problems. Young discussed the social
connection model that demonstrated how any individual who contributed to a structural process
that led to injustice had an obligation to mitigate unjust outcomes. At the center of this duty
stood a leader’s political responsibility to organize and persuade others toward collective action
for the betterment of society (Maak & Pless, 2009; Young, 2006). Political responsibility resides
within leadership positions that generate power, privilege, and potential to enact change (Maak
& Pless, 2009; Young, 2006).
Scholars agree the complex environment in which responsible leaders motivate followers
from various backgrounds with distinct values and interests requires overlapping behavioral roles
(Maak & Pless, 2006b; Maak & Pless, 2022a; Pless et al., 2021; Voegtlin et al., 2019; Waldman
et al., 2020). The responsible leader executes these roles based on time, place, and circumstance,
while demonstrating relational and ethical intelligence (Maak & Pless, 2006a). However,
scholars differ in their interpretation of these roles. Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014) pointed out
inconsistencies in the responsible leadership field in terms of the interpretation of related
24

behaviors. Maak and Pless (2006b) defined the responsible leader as a citizen, steward,
visionary, servant, coach, architect, storyteller, meaning enabler, and change agent. Voegtlin et
al. (2019) defined a responsible leader as an expert, facilitator, and citizen. By contrast,
Waldman et al. (2020) perceived the responsible leader as a strategist.
Discrepancies in responsible leadership scholarship further manifested in the
development of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, areas of focus, and research approaches.
Maak and Pless (2006b), two prolific authors of responsible leadership papers (Marques et al.,
2018), aligned their approach with stakeholder theory (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018). In contrast,
Waldman and Galvin (2008) centered their work on stakeholders but included in their arguments
a fiduciary commitment to individuals with a financial stake in the enterprise. Waldman (2022)
later introduced paradox theory to the study of responsible leadership as a means by which to
deal with the complexities of problems incurred during turbulent times.
Although little research into the antecedents of responsible leadership exists (Tsui, 2022),
several scholars studied the development of a handful of leaders. Pless (2007) applied a narrative
bibliographical approach to an analysis of the life and development of the motivational drivers
and inner theater of Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop cosmetics company. Castillo et
al. (2020) used a similar research approach to study the antecedents and motivational influences
that shaped Carlos Enrique Cavelier, a responsible leader in Colombia. Van de Loo and Lorch
(2022) published an updated version of a 2006 study of the leadership style of Brazilian CEO
Fabio Barbosa, which used interviews, observations, and published written materials. While
these studies examined different aspects of the formation of responsible leaders, each concluded
leaders developed over time, and posited leadership education programs could benefit from
further research into the antecedents that shaped them (Castillo et al., 2020; Maak et al., 2021;
25

van de Loo & Lorch, 2022). As such, the present study concentrated on the forces that shaped the
development of responsible leaders, with Bandura’s SCT as a conceptual framework.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory offers three primary elements that frame this study of the
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that shape leaders who enact responsible
leadership actions in times of crises. Bandura’s (1988) SCT model recognized the complexity of
human mental and physical behavior when judged as an output of the reciprocal relationship
between an individual’s mind, action, and environment. Bandura (1997) presented all human
activity in existence within the correspondent causational triadic arrangement of personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors. Every person has agency to contribute to and regulate
their internal thought processes and behavior; at the same time, they lack control over the social
system in which they exist (Bandura, 1997, 2001). Furthermore, individuals have control over
their actions through forethought, self-regulation, and self-reflection (Bandura, 2001). However,
Bandura observed human agency of control depends on an individual’s self-efficacy, or belief in
their own ability to achieve a goal. Bandura (2001) later made the point that SCT fits within the
realm of psychology and therefore addresses environmental conditions that impact thought and
behavior, as opposed to the physical neurophysiological capacities of an individual.
Responsible leadership theory lands within the context of SCT as scholars recognize that
leadership occurs as a reciprocal interaction between the individual’s personal beliefs and
behaviors, and within an environment of interaction among a diverse set of constituents (Maak &
Pless, 2022a). A leader’s cognitive traits and interactions with the environment impacts crisis
management (Pearson & Clair, 1998). SCT recognizes that through personal agency, individuals
adapt to a tumultuous environment with self-reflection and self-regulation (Bandura, 2001). A
26

leader’s ability to enact such behaviors begins with their personal beliefs, molded over time and
experiences.
Personal Beliefs
SCT reinforces that individuals exert control over their actions and environments through
the processes that take place in their minds. By extension, those thoughts, beliefs, and ideas that
take place within the mind, consciously or not, drive a leader’s actions (Kets de Vries, 1994).
Some crisis management scholars believe the unconscious and mental health of a leader
influence the creation or management of an organizational crisis (Pearson & Clair, 1998).
Udwadia and Mitroff (1991) examined how a leader’s mental status impacts the way in which an
organization operates in crisis. Bandura (1997) studied the complexities of brain activities that
interact within a multitude of factors to generate thought processes and lead to the formulation of
values and ideas, and the execution of actions. Furthermore, Bandura insisted these thought
processes exist within the dimension of self-awareness, judgment, and regulation. SCT
acknowledges that cognitive, affective, and biological factors form the personal element of the
triad that generates actions. The trinity includes values and self-efficacy as demonstrated by
Mohandas K. Gandhi’s leadership and his ability to motivate large groups of people to follow
along as he enacted changes for the betterment of society (Bandura, 2001).
Among the factors that take place within SCT’s framework of personal beliefs, scholars
recognize an individual’s personal values impact their behaviors and decisions (Bandura, 2001;
Dunlap et al., 1983; England, 1967; Rokeach, 1973). A value system encompasses a set of
beliefs ranked by an individual according to relative importance and related to how the
individual conducts themselves. Throughout a person’s development, questions force them to
weigh values against one another; over time, this creates an order of prioritization (Rokeach,
27

1973). Bandura (2001) believed individuals with strong communal values sacrifice personal
interests to help others. When an individual’s goals and values align, motivation to perform the
necessary behaviors increases (Schunk & Usher, 2019).
A personal belief in the importance of values towers over the definition of responsible
leadership (Edward Freeman & Auster, 2022; Haque 2021; Maak & Pless, 2009; Pless, 2007).
Maak and Pless (2022a) concluded that to understand a responsible leader, one must study their
values, virtues, and ethics within the context of their decisions. Modern workforce diversity and
the multitude of stakeholders require leaders who can maintain their integrity of values and
simultaneously respect distinct viewpoints (2022b). Responsible leadership scholars outline an
array of pertinent values, grouped as individual, interpersonal, organizational, and societal.
According to Maak and Pless, life experiences lead to individual values that connect to character
traits such as humility, courage, and integrity. Interpersonal values describe standards of
relational behavior such as tolerance, recognition, respect, honesty, fairness, and trustworthiness.
Organizational values speak to how individuals work with one another and present as excellence,
teamwork, diversity, transparency, and accountability. Societal values consider how individuals
come together and live with each other as a group. Included are such values as liberty, equality,
peace, human dignity, social justice, and preservation of the natural environment (Maak & Pless,
2022b). While a strong value system offers a key to the forces that shape a responsible leader’s
beliefs, a strong sense of self-efficacy helps the leader apply those values to achieve goals in
turbulent times.
Wood and Bandura (1989) defined self-efficacy as the belief in one’s own abilities to
exercise control over events and circumstances. Self-efficacy affects whether individuals commit
to lofty goals, accept challenges, persevere when difficulties arise, and weather failures
28

(Bandura, 1988; 2001). Wood and Bandura (1989) suggested personal self-efficacy determines a
leader’s ability to deploy leadership skills in turbulent times. In part, successful execution stems
from a leader’s personal confidence in their ability to quickly analyze a situation in a crisis and
problem-solve. When people feel they have the capabilities to overcome challenges, they persist
in the face of setbacks. Success supports a leader’s belief in themselves and provides confidence
to better manage future crises (Bandura, 1988; Wood & Bandura, 1989).
A second key to self-efficacy emerged as Wood and Bandura (1989) examined modeling
through vicarious experiences. Role models provide leaders with strategies to manage
turbulence. When a leader witnesses an individual succeed with similar characteristics, the
success strengthens the leader’s self-efficacy. A third pillar of self-efficacy stems from social
persuasion and supportive words and actions of others (Bandura,1988). Positive appraisals build
an individual’s belief in their capabilities (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Lastly, Bandura (1988)
noted increased self-efficacy involves the perception of a physical state. An individual’s self-
efficacy improves when they believe they can manage the physical impacts of strain and stress.
Personal beliefs of values and self-efficacy sway behaviors.
Behavior
Leadership takes shape in behaviors enacted in private and public. Behavioral conduct
includes the personal actions of self-reflection and regulation, the establishment of vision and
goals, and the outward activities of communication and engagement with stakeholders. Within
the framework of SCT, Bandura (2001; 2010) focused on human agency, the notion that
individuals have choice and control over their actions. Given this control and choice, humans
determine which behaviors to enact; for example, whether they self-reflect, how they self-
regulate, and the efforts they dedicate to those processes (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
29

Bandura (1986) believed individuals self-regulate based on their personal vision and goals and
the standards they hold for themselves. When communicated to stakeholders, a leader’s vision
and goals act as symbols that motivate behavior to achieve a desired future state (Bandura,
1986). In the application of SCT to responsible leadership theory, the present study looked at
behavioral factors within a leader’s creation of a vision and goals, as well as the actions of self-
reflection, regulation, and engagement with stakeholders.
Leadership behaviors begin with a vision and goals. Leaders use vision and goals as tools
in the engagement and motivation of followers (Berson et al., 2015). The establishment of a
vision and goals help motivate individuals and groups to plan a course of action (Bandura, 2001).
The vision paints a broad, long-term picture of the future; goals exist as the concrete binding, and
often involve timelines (Berson et al., 2015; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Bandura (1997) defined
goals as a mental construct that motivate behavior to achieve an outcome. However, Bandura
(2001) recognized most goals require a collective vision and intent. Although visions and goals
sometimes share commonalities, Berson et al. (2015) believed leaders and followers should view
them as distinct. While leaders and followers often perceive goals and visions as set ideas,
environmental, personal, and behavioral factors lead to adjustments.
Scholars offer insight into how vision and goals work together in leadership. Kets de
Vries (1994) reasoned leadership begins with a vision, defined as a reflection of the leader’s core
values and beliefs, that provides direction for the organization and assists in the identification of
an organization’s philosophy and mission. Berson et al. (2015) noted the alignment of a leader’s
vision and goals produces more positive outcomes when the vision gives stakeholders the reason
for action. Alignment leads to an enhanced commitment to achieve a goal. Goals provide
guideposts to signal the achievability of the vision to stakeholders. To set effective goals, a
30

leader must engage with stakeholders and understand the environment. When a leader lacks
knowledge of the environmental conditions, the vision and goals often fail to align with
stakeholders and fall short of the intended target (Berson et al., 2015). Waldman and Galvin
(2008) discussed the incorporation of a leader’s values into their vision as one way to increase
responsibility toward stakeholders. Indeed, Bandura (2001) insisted a vision that reflects values
brings meaning to the work necessary to achieve the goal. Pless (2007) discussed responsible
leadership as propelled by a shared vision co-created by the leader and stakeholders. A shared
purpose helps stakeholders and the leader to co-create values and impact change. In turn, the
shared purpose motivates stakeholders toward action (Maak & Pless, 2009).
An individual uses self-regulation to align behavior with values and goals. Bandura
(2001) asserted self-regulation impacts an individual’s ability to make decisions that shape their
choices. Self-regulation occurs as an interactive process with values and goal setting. Individuals
exert moral agency based on what they believe right or wrong in accordance with their values.
Bandura further explained when circumstance and values conflict, people self-sanction their
behaviors to achieve alignment. Nonetheless, individuals might ignore personal values and
engage in misconduct if they perceive such conduct will achieve other moral objectives.
Similarly, they might suspend their values and shift responsibility for their actions to others, or
disregard the impacts of their decisions (Bandura, 2001). To achieve self-regulation, Bandura
(1986) further acknowledged, individuals first engage in self-reflection relative to their personal
standards, then adjust their behavior.
Responsible leadership scholars align to SCT’s notion of self-reflection to achieve self-
regulation. Maak and Pless (2022b) wrote a responsible leader must possess awareness of their
values and regulate how those values impact a diverse set of stakeholders. To lead, one must first
31

know oneself. Furthermore, responsible leadership requires an individual to engage in personal
reflections to adapt and develop behaviors that align with external environmental changes and
their own values (Aspling, 2022). Edward Freeman and Auster (2022) declared personal self-
reflection should include an examination of the past, relationships with others, and future
aspirations. Through this process, a leader better understands themselves and their
interconnectedness with their values and the individuals with whom they engage. Only through
such self-reflection can one develop as an authentic person, which Edward Freeman and Auster
regarded as a mandate for responsible leadership.
Kezar (2000) asserted in the contemporary global environment, leaders must maintain
consciousness of their own positionality as they navigate complex stakeholder interests.
Positionality theory declares everyone arrives at any given situation with a variety of identities
that include race, social class, gender, professional role, family, and culture. Identities manifest
differently, depending on context and power dynamics. Ulmer (2020) stated every leader needs
to understand intersectionality. Self-awareness of positionality and how it regulates subsequent
behavior in interaction with others impacts an individual’s role in the world (Kezar, 2000), and
ultimately affects the stakeholders whom leaders serve.
Within the framework of SCT’s behaviors, a leader’s interactions and communications
mirror their personal beliefs and the environments in which actions occur. Leadership does not
take place in a silo, but rather in an interdependent relationship with followers (Ruben &
Gigliotti, 2021). Bandura’s (2001) SCT model recognized the achievement of goals requires the
motivation and action of multiple people. He observed SCT’s concepts of goals, motivation,
regulation, and efficacy extend to groups; motivation occurs when individuals share the same
32

values and believe they can achieve a goal. When a group recognizes it can achieve a goal
together, resilience strengthens against adversity (Bandura, 2001).
Crises management scholars point out the need to motivate a group of people to achieve a
common goal expands in turbulent times. Udwadia and Mitroff (1991) concluded crises demand
a response to internal and external stakeholders. Crisis mitigation requires honest, fast, and
accurate information to support the needs of a large, networked group (Udwadia & Mitroff,
1991). In a crisis, a leader acts as a conductor who orchestrates a complex environment and sorts
the myriad of misinformation that permeates contemporary media information platforms (Maak
et al., 2021). Kets de Vries (1994) stated good leaders seek information from their environment
to solve problems. The scholar further shared that these leaders gather complex information,
simplify it, and turn it into comprehensible soundbites for followers. Crises require coping
strategies on a collective level for stakeholders to make sense of the circumstances and maintain
faith in the leader (Maak et al., 2021; Pearson & Clair, 1998). A leader’s relational intelligence
helps them consider the emotional needs of stakeholders and helps stakeholders build
relationships with each other to weather the crisis, particularly when deaths occur (Maak et al.,
2021).
Maak et al. (2021) postulated responsible leaders support stakeholders in crisis through
two-way conversations that enable followers to make informed sense of circumstances. These
scholars asserted leaders communicate with compassion, instill hope, and offer moments of
humanity that tie people together for a common cause. Waldman and Galvin (2008) believed
responsible leaders engage followers in intellectually stimulating conversations to identify
creative solutions to complex problems in a global environment. Beyond engagement,
responsible leaders create an image of the future and provide a comprehensive view of the
33

complexity of the environment and stakeholder expectations. Waldman and Galvin further
insisted that through these dialogues, responsible leaders question assumptions and provide
ideas, and thereby help followers see their roles as part of the larger society. SCT creates an
opportunity to study how these behaviors interact with personal beliefs and environmental
factors to shape responsible leaders in times of crises.
Environment
An individual’s leadership style develops over time, shaped by the education they
received, the people who acted as role models, and the organizational culture of their workplace.
Bandura (1997) stated environmental factors act as part of the triadic reciprocal relationship that
co-create cognition and behaviors. These factors span biological impacts of age and physical
development, along with familial, educational, occupational, and institutional influences.
Unexpected yet inevitable events such as natural disasters, illness, economic upheaval, and
political fluctuations further impact personal environments. Bandura identified three types of
environments, imposed, selected, and created. Some events transpire as fortuitous occurrences;
others take place through individual choices. For example, some families impose a person’s
educational environment; in other cases, an individual chooses a path over familial opposition.
Bandura (2010) acknowledged education provides opportunities for personal mental
growth and the ability to improve one’s life. He examined the transformation of education over
the past century; specifically, the enhancement of self-directed learning. Furthermore, he
explored how self-efficacy plays a significant role in education (2010). As individuals gain
training, Bandura (1988) hypothesized, their self-efficacy grows, along with the confidence in
their ability to accomplish goals. The more self-efficacy an individual possesses, the broader
career choices they consider. Thus, they make educational decisions that prepare them for the
34

future. Self-efficacy also impacts a student’s learning (Bandura, 2010). A student with high self-
efficacy is more likely to master an academic challenge, seek advanced levels of education, and
prepare for a career (Bandura, 2010). Mayhew et al. (2016) observed in a review of more than
1,800 research investigations, service leaning fostered leadership attributes as well as self-
efficacy. The study demonstrated the inclusion of self-reflection exercises contributes to self-
efficacy and leadership development.
Rockenbach (2020) relayed how stories of individual leaders underscore the impact of
higher education on the development of a leader. She determined the experiences students
receive in higher education have a greater impact on their character development than the type of
school they attend. She described the example of author Tara Westover (2018), who explained
the transformational influence of higher education on her world view and sense of responsibility
in the book Educated. Marton (2022) attributed former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s
approach to decision-making to her university training, which produced a doctorate degree in
quantum chemistry. Within responsible leadership literature, a study focused on Colombian
leader Carlos Enrique Cavelier linked his exposure to humanistic subjects in school and
university to his values, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity (Castillo et al., 2020).
Leadership scholars long acknowledged role models as a form of education influencers
who shape leaders into how they think, act, and behave. Bandura (1986) recognized the
importance of role modeling in the transfer of ideas, values, and behaviors from one person to
the next. The opportunity for change sparked within such transfers. Bandura wrote most learning
occurs in experiences through observation. With observation of modeled behaviors, trials and
failures, individuals discover how to act (Bandura, 1986). However, Bandura (1988) claimed
people must possess more than skills to achieve a goal; they need self-confidence in their ability
35

to succeed. According to Bandura’s (1986) SCT, implementation involves the observation of
modeled skills, the chance to practice those skills under guidance, and the experience of results.
He observed individuals need opportunities to test skills under supervision and receive corrective
feedback in support of self-efficacy. Feedback from role models has a significant impact on
learning (Bandura, 1988).
Role models arrive in various forms and include family members, as seen in the
biography of Cavelier, whose grandfather and father influenced his development as a leader
(Castillo et al., 2020). In a similar manner, van de Loo and Lorch (2022) identified how the
father and grandfather of Brazilian responsible leader Fabio Barbosa shaped his values. In the
study of Anita Roddick, Pless (2007) discussed lessons about work ethic and relationships
indoctrinated by Roddick’s mother. Furthermore, Castillo et al. (2020) noted how the lessons of
role models aligned with instructions from the educational environment and supported the
creation of a responsible leader. While these studies demonstrated the influence of role models
on the development of leaders, they also discussed factors of environmental culture.
Scholars agree leadership takes place within the context of an organization and its
cultural environment. Mirvis et al. (2022) concluded in a study of more than 100 CEOs and
senior executives worldwide, while many discussed responsible leadership in terms of personal
values, they also discussed organizational culture. Indeed, studies showed responsible leadership
orientations depend on social cues to point toward how to behave (Mirvis et al., 2022). Clark and
Estes (2008) claimed studies of environmental cultures reveal an organization’s values, goals,
beliefs, and processes shape a leader’s performances. Schein and Schein (2017) recognized
culture exists as the expressed conglomeration of what a group of people learned and, in turn,
taught new members. Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014) believed different cultural values within
36

organizational contexts and the national stage influence responsible leaders as they meet societal
expectations of acceptable behaviors. Organizational culture relevant to collectivism, power
distance, empathy for stakeholders, and concern for the community coalesces to impact leaders.
Waldman et al. (2020) called for additional research into the influence of organizational culture
on responsible leadership. Taken together with environmental factors of education and role
models, culture fits into the environmental frame of SCT that works alongside personal beliefs
and behaviors to shape individual actions.
Conceptual Framework
The study used Bandura’s (1986) SCT as a conceptual framework to explore the
personal, behavioral, and environmental forces that shape leaders who act responsibly in
tumultuous times. SCT recognizes an individual’s personal beliefs, behaviors, and social
environmental factors at work in reciprocal interaction (Bandura, 1986; Wood & Bandura,
1989). The factors form in a multitude of arrangements, with many pieces often needed for one
outcome (Bandura, 1986). The triadic interaction includes personal cognition of thoughts,
beliefs, and self-efficacy; behaviors involve decisions, effort, and actions; and environmental
influences such as life exposures, social interactions, and culture (Schunk & Usher, 2019). The
theory rests in the notion that individuals and groups have agency in how this triadic reciprocal
interaction leads to thought, actions, and experiences within an environment (Wood & Bandura,
1989). For example, personal beliefs impact the development and articulation of a vision and
goals (Bandura, 1986; 1988). Likewise, self-reflection on one’s beliefs leads to self-regulation of
thought, action, and social interactions (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Within that space, role models
provide life lessons that guide personal beliefs and the development of a vision (Bandura, 1986).
37

SCT’s triadic reciprocal causation model offers a map with which to examine the
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that shape responsible leaders. The personal
beliefs of responsible leaders manifest in their values, dedication to stakeholders, and vision
(Pless, 2007). Self-reflection on behaviors related to goals leads to self-regulation, and in turn
impacts interactions with the stakeholders (Bandura, 2001). The observation of role models, such
as parents in childhood and mentors in professional settings, influences values and self-efficacy
(Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Characteristics emerge in past and current situational
environments (Pless, 2007; Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014).
Responsible leadership scholars accentuate the need to study the antecedents that shape
responsible leaders, but disagree upon a common approach to this research (Waldman, 2022).
The complex challenges of contemporary turbulence prompted interest in research and the
development of responsible leaders (Castillo et al., 2020; Tsui, 2022). In addition, scholars call
for studies to examine elements that shape leaders who manage complex environments and
motivate stakeholders in times of crises (Maak et al., 2021; Tsui, 2022). New research into the
antecedents that create responsible leaders may illuminate a path to develop individuals who can
lead organizations through challenges, today and in the future (Castillo et al., 2020; Maak et al.,
2021). The study examined responsible leaders after crises, through their perceptions of personal
factors of values and self-efficacy; behavioral factors of goal setting, self-regulation, and
stakeholder engagement; and environmental factors of education, role models, and organizational
cultures. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework for the study.

38

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Conclusion
A review of contemporary news media sites illustrates the challenges leaders face:
political instability, climate change, economic uncertainty, wars, poverty, disasters, migrant
crises, and societal upheavals. Such turbulence requires leadership (Ulmer, 2020). Current
tumultuous environments, exemplified by a global pandemic, climate change, and racial
inequities, point to the need to understand the components that create leaders who take
39

responsible actions in times of crises (Tsui, 2022). Bandura’s SCT provides a framework through
which to examine a responsible leader’s perceptions of their personal beliefs, behaviors, and
environments. This study, in contribution to the leadership literature, examined the values, self-
efficacy, vision, goals, self-reflection and regulation, stakeholder engagement, education, role
models, and organizational culture of leaders with histories of doing right by society and
followers in times of crises.

40

Chapter Three: Methodology
The study sought to identify the individual personal traits, behaviors, and environments
of responsible leaders who guide organizations through turbulence with decisions that reflect
commitments to stakeholders and society at large. Chapter One provided an introduction to the
study. Chapter Two offered an overview of the literature and concepts relevant to today’s
turbulent environment, responsible leadership theory, and SCT. Chapter Three returns to the
research questions that align with Bandura’s (1986) SCT and offers a synopsis of the research
methodology for data collection and analyses. The chapter concludes with a discussion of ethics
and acknowledgment of the study’s limitations and delimitations.
Research Questions
1. How do leaders who demonstrate responsible leadership in times of crises perceive
their personal beliefs?
2. How do responsible leaders perceive their behaviors?
3. How are external environments perceived by leaders who demonstrate responsible
leadership in times of crises?
Overview of Design
The study used a qualitative approach to focus on data collection through interviews to
understand the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that shape responsible leaders.
Patton (2002) discussed qualitative research as a method that gathers in-depth and detailed
information about participant perceptions. Interviews place the researcher in the role of
collecting and analyzing data that take the form of words and allow for flexible and inductive
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Patton, 2002). In this study, interviews acted as dialogues
centered on the leaders’ perceptions of life experiences that lead to data collection (Klenke et al.,
41

2016; Plakoyiannaki et al., 2019). The research design included a list of predetermined questions
that promoted flexibility in semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews contain both
close-ended and open-ended questions and allow for probes (Klenke et al., 2016). The strategy
offers consistency across interviews and a cogent thread through the conversations (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). The interview guide offered 18 questions aligned to the research goals of this
project.
Research Setting
The study explored the perceptions of 10 public, private, and nonprofit organizational
leaders who navigated a crisis with a commitment to stakeholder engagement and decisions that
benefitted society as defined by at least one of the 17 UN SDGs. Yildiz et al. (2023) explained
the SDGs exist as a focal point of the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development that asks
business and public organizations to work together to resolve grand challenges that threaten the
future of humanity and the planet. As such, the SDGs offer what Patton (2002) described as a
level of criteria that supports quality control to measure responsible leadership decisions. The
interviews for the study took place in a one-on-one environment via the online Zoom platform
with executive leaders from across the United States. The leaders represented public, nonprofit,
and private sectors, as well as diversity in gender identity, age, and race.
The Researcher
In this study of responsible leadership, I recognize my upbringing, career path, and
position in the world may lead to biases and assumptions; alternatively, my professional skills
may mitigate such impacts on the research. Boulding (1961) declared all knowledge exists as an
image created by an individual through personal experience. For philosophers and scholars, this
aspect presents itself as two concepts: epistemology, which relates to how we identify a piece of
42

knowledge as truth, and ontology, which involves knowledge as it links to the causal relationship
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). These ideas recognize how the researcher’s own life experiences,
assumptions, and beliefs impact a study (Tsui, 2022).
In a review of my life experiences and their impact on my biases in relation to this study,
I acknowledge that I chose this topic based on my own belief systems grounded in my
upbringing in Western philosophy, religion, and traditions. My beliefs shifted later in life
through an interest in Eastern thought and practices. I confess at my core I believe we should
treat others as they wish to be treated, and each of us has a duty to contribute to a better world for
the next generation. Built upon my innate values, I maintain a career that builds toward a better
world, first as a journalist and later as communications professional for K-12 public education
systems. Throughout my 17 years in K-12 leadership roles, I witnessed leaders guide the positive
transformation of institutional reputations, and saw narcissistic leaders create organizational
distrust and dysfunction. Through my work, I supported the response to the COVID-19
pandemic, which ravaged the physical and emotional wellbeing of students, staff, and families.
During this time, I provided integrated strategic communications advice for my organization and
the 80 school districts we serve, on issues of health and welfare, racism, social justice, political
polarization, and gun violence. These experiences propel my passion and inform my thinking in
the study of leaders who act responsibly in times of crises.
At the same time, my professional background as a journalist assists in the mitigation of
potential biases and assumptions. In my journalistic role, I held to a code of ethics in research
and reporting, and recognized that my positionality, as well as that of my editors, impacted every
story I told. Based on this history, I used several approaches to avoid potential assumptions and
biases in this study. These included interview questions that captured the interview subject’s
43

understanding of responsible leadership (Tsui, 2022), and a rich description of these findings in
the dissertation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I applied member checking and shared the final
report with the interview subjects, and thus tested for validity prior to finalization (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Finally, I asked a peer to review my findings and
consider whether my positionality impacted the validity of the study (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Data Sources
The data derived from 10 semi-structured interviews conducted via the online Zoom
platform over a period of 4 weeks. Patton (2002) observed interviews as data sources provide an
opportunity to examine the thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions of participants. He further believed
interviews generate an opportunity to capture thoughts the eye cannot see. Each of the 10
interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes. A semi-structured approach allows detours for
nuances and deeper dives into participant responses through probe questions that extend the
ability to follow-up (Klenke et al., 2016). The Zoom platform recorded and transcribed the
interviews. The Rev.com platform also transcribed the recordings. The iPhone memo function
created a backup record. One participant added subsequent information via email.
Participants
The study involved organizational leaders who navigated a crisis with a commitment to
stakeholder engagement and decisions that benefitted society as defined by the UN SDGs (UN,
2015). Participants represented diversity in gender, race, age, and position. The study used a
purposeful sampling approach to select the 10 participants. Purposeful sampling allows for
comprehensive research on specific cases packed with robust information (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015; Patton, 2002; Staller, 2021). In addition, a criterion-based selection provides set standards
44

for selection of the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Patton (2002) observed criterion
sampling can assist with quality control. Criteria for selection to this study stipulated the
participant held a senior level management position; the participant made a decision that
supported a greater good and aligned with the UN SDGs during a crisis; and the decision
involved the engagement of stakeholders. Potential participants were identified through word-of-
mouth. The criteria for participation were emailed to each prospect. Participants self-reported
when they made any decision during a crisis that involved the engagement of stakeholders and
focused on an outcome aligned to the betterment of society.
Instrumentation
Qualitative one-on-one interviews allow participants to share their historic lived
experiences and perceptions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Interviews offer a researcher the
ability to gather individual perceptions and life stories that observation alone cannot collect
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Patton, 2002). The semi-structured interviews included a set of 18
predetermined questions, as well as probes that allowed for deeper exploration. Morgan (2014)
explained this type of study design creates an inductive approach to research that provides space
for discovery and the emergence of patterns and themes. The author further detailed that in a
semi-structured interview, the researcher has the freedom of flexibility to adapt how they deploy
a list of pre-written questions. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews place the researcher as
the instrument to record the subjects’ perceptions and allow for detailed descriptions. Finally,
qualitative interviews encourage the subjects to share stories of their past that connect life
experiences with theory (Morgan, 2014).
Morgan (2014) concluded all scholarly studies require both research questions and a
pathway to identify answers to that query. As such, an interview guide followed Patton’s (2002)
45

advice to provide structure and alignment between the 10 interviews. Patton noted an interview
guide presents an opportunity to ensure the questions fit within the allotted interview timeframe
and align with the research questions. See Appendix A for the interview guide. To assess the
three reciprocal elements of SCT of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors, the
questions reflected queries into the experiences, values, and feelings of the participants. To test
the protocol in advance of the interviews, the researcher conducted external interviews with
colleagues to assess any biases, determine the flow of the questions, and look for potential
challenges with the protocol before moving to data collection (Crawford & Knight Lynn, 2019).
Data Collection Procedures
Interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes through the online Zoom platform. The
Zoom platform recorded and transcribed the interviews. The Rev.com platform created
secondary transcripts. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) asserted the strengths of this online interview
approach lie in its convenience, in particular the ability to interview participants in distant
geographic settings. Online software allows simplicity in recording and transcription. Drawbacks
include the technology failing to record or internet fluctuations that affect the voice or image
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). To mitigate such challenges, the iPhone voice memo program served
as a backup. The two online transcription services captured the voice interviews in written
words. Transcripts were reviewed for accuracy. In addition, reflexive notes captured the
researcher’s observations and reflective thoughts during the interviews (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). These multiple steps supported the next phase of analysis, the transformation of
interviews into data.
46

Data Analysis
Analysis of the data collected from the interviews centered on the identification of
themes and coding to make sense of the information and develop findings. Klenke et al. (2016)
cautioned qualitative interviews produce a large quantity of information, which reduces to
smaller pieces of information. The process begins with the interviews. Both Patton (2002) and
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) remarked on the need to analyze data during the collection process
as opposed to starting after the completion of the interviews. Throughout the process, themes
emerged in reviews of the transcripts. The themes allowed for the sorting of the data into smaller,
more manageable areas of study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). From the themes, transcripts were
coded into pieces of information for analyzation and development of findings. In addition, notes
taken throughout the process captured both observations during the interviews and personal
reflections. The notes included thick descriptions that provided in-depth details and supported
the relayed perceptions of participants (Patton, 2002; Tsui, 2022). The rich descriptions
contributed to the validity and reliability of the process.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Several approaches ensured credibility and trustworthiness in the data. One method
involved reflexive journaling that began prior to the first interview and captured the
presuppositions of the researcher and detailed the relationships with the interviewees (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Crawford & Knight Lynn, 2019; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The process included
the researcher’s self-reflection of positionality and its impact on the study. Open-ended questions
aligned with the research questions as well as responsible leadership and SCT (Roberts, 2020;
Tsui, 2022). Rich descriptions of the findings further provided context and supported the
credibility of the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Tsui (2022)
47

insisted researchers who study responsible leadership need to act responsibly through the
involvement of people who have investment in the research. As such, Interviewee Transcript
Review for validation of responses reinforces the researcher’s findings (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Klenke et al., 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In addition, peer review ensures harmony
between the raw data and findings, as do rich descriptions in the summary. Through these
processes, the credibility and trustworthiness of the study supported an ethical approach.
Ethics
Ethical considerations underlie every area of research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Ultimately, ethical deliberations fall to the researcher. Creswell and Creswell (2018) observed
methodology itself cannot guarantee an ethical approach; rather, a study’s ethics lie in the
behavior of the researcher. An understanding of the problem of practice and recognition that the
findings may benefit or harm some individuals underscore the researcher’s mission. The authors
declared the researcher must understand professional standards and receive approval through the
institutional review board. Standards include steps in which the researcher informed interviewees
about the risks and benefits of participation and sought informed consent through a signed form,
and thus offered an opportunity for refusal (Klenke et al., 2016). In addition, the researcher
promised confidentiality, which leaves out names and identifying information and provides
protection from harm (Klenke et al., 2016). Before the interviews began, participants received a
reminder of these promises. The researcher sought permission to record each interview and
guaranteed safe data storage and disposal. Finally, in research, controversy can arise from
questions relevant to the validity of the research or the creation of false positive errors (Tsui,
2022). To address such concerns, participants had the ability to review the findings prior to
publication as part of the validation process (Klenke et al., 2016).
48

Chapter Four: Findings
The study evaluated the personal, behavioral, and environmental factors that shape
leaders who act responsibly in times of crises. Bandura’s SCT provided the academic
framework, and qualitative interviews facilitated the development of recommendations and
organization of the research findings. Chapter Four outlines the research participants, interviews,
and findings. The study addressed the following research questions:
1. How do leaders who demonstrate responsible leadership in times of crises perceive
their personal beliefs?
2. How do responsible leaders perceive their behaviors?
3. How do leaders who demonstrate responsible leadership in times of crises describe
their environmental influences?
Participants
The study involved 10 leaders of profit, nonprofit, and public sector organizations who
made decisions based on the health and wellbeing of others as opposed to their own needs during
a crisis. The leaders shared information and engaged diverse stakeholders in conversations. The
study included current leaders and retirees, all of whom described a crisis experienced between
2010 and 2022. The participants represented diversity in gender, race, and age. All identified
their home base as the United States. Two interviewees worked on a global level, and five were
born and raised in other countries. All had at least 20 years of leadership experience. Chapter
Four includes the participants’ reflections on their personal beliefs, behaviors, and environments.
Table 1 provides an overview of the participant’s pseudonym, number of years in leadership
positions, and organization type at the time of crisis. Note six participants reported their
leadership roles dated back to their youth.
49

Table 1
Participant Demographics
Participant
Estimated years in
leadership
Organization type
Albert 20 Public and private sectors
Ali 48 Public sector
Angela 28 Public sector
Archi 31 Nonprofit
Charles 48 Private sector
Jacob 32 Private sector
Jean 15 Nonprofit
Lucas 39 Public sector
Sue
65 Public sector
Matt
46 Public and private sectors

The use of pseudonyms in place of names provided participants and their organizations
anonymity and allowed for unfettered and deep reflection on their life experiences and roles in
crisis situations.
Findings Research Question One
The study examined personal beliefs with questions specific to values and a sense of self-
efficacy. Altruism-based values play a major role in leadership actions. Participants reported
primary values development during youth, through role models, experiences, and cultural
influences. Furthermore, every participant expressed a strong sense of self-efficacy, as evidenced
by a readiness to manage complex challenges and an ability to persevere through turbulent
environments. Participants reiterated their self-efficacy evolved over a lifetime of experiences
and human interactions.
50

Values
Three themes arose relevant to how leaders perceived their values in response to a crisis.
Responsible leaders base decisions on values built upon belief systems that support a greater
good beyond their self-interests. Such values center on people whom the leaders serve, and thus
propel the actions and help the leaders maintain balance in times of crisis. Environmental factors,
often during youth, shaped the belief systems that participants relied on in crisis situations.
Values Drive Action
Values drive decisions and help steady responsible leaders in a crisis. Participants cited
the benefit to society as a primary motivator. “Leadership is your ability to function for the
greater good in an uncomfortable environment,” Lucas emphasized. In the private sector, values
help a leader focus on the betterment of society rather than the profit margin. Jacob explained, “I
think that to do what is right, not necessarily what you can get away with, is a central
parameter.” Crises provide leaders with the chance to act on their values. “It becomes this
wonderful or horrific opportunity to either walk the talk or not, right?” Charles observed. Matt
expressed a similar sentiment. “So much of it is your values. Are you willing, do you have
courage?” Participants embraced the notion that crises offer occasions to validate beliefs through
actions. “Now is the time for us to act. This is the opportunity,” Jean affirmed. “So, let’s push
ourselves here. Let’s rise to the moment to see what we could do.”
Values help responsible leaders navigate complex situations. In unstable environments,
leaders depend upon values to influence difficult decisions. “You’re always faced with these
decisions. You’ve got to make these decisions, and you’ve got to dig in somewhere,” Archi
noted. Values assist leaders as they weigh the impact of decisions. “I feel like our values really
made it pretty simple for us to figure out the right and wrong,” Angela acknowledged. Likewise,
51

leaders lean into their values to prioritize the needs of stakeholders. “The question is what is
actually the right thing to do both for the community and for the [organization]. Whatever that is,
we’re going to do,” Lucas pointed out. The importance of delivering benefits to people, both
stakeholders and community members, surfaced multiple times in conversations with
participants.
Values Focused on People
Responsible leaders act with altruism on behalf of people under their care. Every
participant declared they realized multiple groups of stakeholders relied on them for responsible
decisions in times of crisis. Charles offered, “There are many different individuals and groups of
people who are really depending on you, that if you haven’t given that any thought, you’re
probably not going to serve them very well in real time.” Attention to stakeholder considerations
helps leaders make choices in atmospheres of confusion and political uncertainty. Ali explained,
“That makes it a little bit easier, and you are more able to narrow things down when you have to
make difficult decisions, especially political decisions.” To operate under such conditions,
leaders remind staff to remember their values to protect stakeholders. Angela emphasized, “If
our value was protecting those who are most vulnerable, it was pretty easy to make decisions that
were in part controversial and in part questionable.”
Participants recognized the significance of relationships, the interconnectedness of the
world, and how their decisions impacted diverse yet similar groups. Responsible leaders believe
in humanity. “So, what drives me is the connection to humans, because even though we talk
about all these systems and organizations, at the end of the day, they’re also humans,” Jean
declared. Leaders understand decisions have disproportionate impacts that may lead to or
strengthen inequities. “All of this is interconnected,” Sue explained. “You need to see the
52

inequity, see the fact that we are still interconnected.” While systems play an important role in
crisis management, a responsible leader appreciates human relationships. “I’m a person who
believes you have to stay focused on systems change, but you can’t do systems change work
without building relationships,” Angela confirmed. Participants indicated their appreciation for
actions that help others required time, sometimes decades, to unfold.
Values Shaped by the Environment
Responsible leaders build their values over a lifetime of experiences and interactions with
other people. Study participants described how values blossomed from family experiences and
stories of battles won and challenges overcome. For example, Jean recalled how the impact of
generational history and the trauma of his family’s escape from a dangerous political situation
shaped his values about the interconnectivity of the world and its inhabitants. For others, the
behavior of people in neighborhoods where participants grew up impacted their belief systems.
Lucas shared how the challenges of his childhood in a high-crime neighborhood inspired a
determination to serve members of that community. “I owe a debt to this city that I’ll never be
able to repay,” Lucas admitted. For one participant, religion helped shape his values. Archi
described how his conversion to Buddhism influenced his values, and how his attitudes shifted
when he returned to Catholicism, the religion of his childhood. Memories of a fellow student and
neighbor who stood up to bullies shaped Matt’s leadership style. These experiences provided
insights into how youthful interactions impact a leader’s personal beliefs. Cultural environments
added another layer of complexity to the formation of the future leaders under study.
Each of the five participants who grew up outside the United States discussed how the
cultures of their homelands shaped their values. In some cases, conversations of adults engaged
in their childhood sharpened their sense of values. “I grew up in a country where political
53

discourse and dialogue and right and wrong is being openly discussed, like everybody would talk
around me when I was a kid,” Jacob remembered. As with family trauma, the history of a nation
impacts the culture of a community and its future leaders. Angela described the memory of
growing up in a recent former colony. “There was always this very present question in my world
of what does it mean to be colonized? What does it mean to not have rights?” In some cases, the
challenges participants faced related to systemic inequities made them as leaders more eager to
help others. Sue believed her appreciation for equity in decision making was linked to the
poverty of her youth and her escape from a country that favored males over females. These
experiences formed leaders with powerful values rooted in making the world a better place for
all people.
Self-Efficacy
Questions specific to self-efficacy generated three themes based on the reliance of self-
efficacy in times of crises. Study participants reported faith in their ability to meet a challenge
and exercise control over tumultuous events. These beliefs inspired perseverance and the courage
to push through significant challenges. Participants gained leadership skills from life experiences
and people with whom they engaged. Personal encounters taught the leaders to believe in their
own mastery and strength of perseverance, even in the aftermath of failure.
Readiness to Meet Challenges
Self-efficacy for leaders in times of crises presents in a readiness to accept the challenge.
Participants reported the recognition of a crisis as the moment to act on behalf of their values and
stakeholders. Matt explained, “The variety of the issues that come across your plate are amazing.
And I love the richness of the experience, all the people in the groups that you get to work with.”
For leaders, the need for action demands courage in the face of adversity. “It’s about learning to
54

not fear, not be fragile and just try to be brave. Brave is a word that we use a lot in our space. Be
courageous. It doesn’t mean that you’re going to succeed,” Jean declared. Such courage
permeates, supports, and motivates team members. Jacob recalled crises when he gathered his
team and announced, “‘I’m going to do something really radical. I’m going to do this fast,’ and
then they’re looking at you like, sure, we’re in, and if there are a little bit of side effects, we’ll
deal with them together.” The desire to inspire others to meet a challenge served as an
accountability mechanism. “My accountability is not for the ultimate outcome. But my
accountability is to try. That’s what I’m going to remember at the end of my life,” Jean vowed.
One situation where self-efficacy announces itself involves a recognition that crises
assume different formats, each of which may require a decision before the next problem arrives.
Leaders with self-efficacy believe they determine when to call a tumultuous event a crisis.
“Crises come in degrees and severity. It is how you want to perceive the importance or
significance of that crisis. I define what the crisis is,” Sue professed. Leaders understand crises
require decisiveness. “The worst thing is when you have a leader who just does nothing, you
know? You have to make a decision,” Ali observed. For responsible leaders, this sense of self-
efficacy to meet a challenge inspires perseverance.
Perseverance
Responsible leaders not only meet challenges, they persevere when confronted by
obstacles. They maintain an extended view of life beyond the immediate event. “There is a
longer term. A crisis is a moment. It’s a moment in time. But there is something larger,” Jean
emphasized. A sense of calm and perseverance derives from the leader’s assurance that they can
solve problems. “You have to believe that you have the power to fix it. And you have the power
of ideas and the power of implementation. The power is in your hand,” Sue insisted. Likewise,
55

participants reported a steadiness at the helm, and an understanding that outcomes may not
resolve as anticipated. “Sometimes, you don’t get everything. Sometimes, you take what you can
get when you’re fighting and advocating for something,” Ali acknowledged. One participant
regarded a crisis as a positive element to help maintain momentum. “You have to know what is a
long-term [goal] in order to absolutely make a crisis into opportunities. You know, don’t waste a
crisis,” Sue reminded.
In the process of stakeholder engagement, leaders often hear criticisms about their
decisions. The values they maintain sustain their perseverance. “There were very few threats to
my feeling okay about the direction we were moving in, because it was value-based and we were
constantly being reflective,” Angela recalled. One way in which responsible leaders persevere is
with attention to the people they serve, rather than themselves. “It is always about the other
people,” Sue insisted. In some cases, leaders emphasize their position as models to others in the
organization. Jean insisted crises offer a moment to show others “that there are certain things that
you need to be very decisive, and just do it and be animated by your values.” As with values and
self-efficacy, the ability of a responsible leader to persevere through crisis emerges from the
determination to build on earlier lessons.
Lifelong Learners
Life experiences give responsible leaders confidence to endure and overcome turbulent
events. For study participants, role models delivered lessons in fortitude. Lucas remembered of
his mother, “She made me believe I could do anything I wanted to. And she rarely told me that.
She just made me believe that. Now when something is a challenge, I say, ‘Okay, we’ll surmount
it, we’ll figure it out.’” Participants confirmed this fortitude derived from life experiences. Archi
described how the presence of a crime syndicate in his neighborhood taught him to manage
56

ambiguity and unspoken rules. For other participants, the history of family trauma left imprints
on their approach to life. Jean reflected on his family’s story of immigration and fear that led to
his readiness to meet “the moment as much as possible, being flexible, ready to reinvent
yourself.”
Leaders recognize their experiences create a sense of mastery over unpredictable
circumstances. Study participants discussed the transformational value of knowledge and
learning. However, for Jacob, a distinction exists between knowledge and experience that defines
mastery. “An expert can handle the most complicated problems,” he explained. “But masters,
they can handle the most complicated problems and enjoy them.” Years of experience refine a
leader’s ability to remain calm in crisis. “I’ve had so many challenges in my life that I don’t
freak out,” Ali declared. Despite their confidence, responsible leaders acknowledge the limits of
their skills. Leadership often requires demonstrations of humility and knowing when to seek
help. “In those situations where I don’t have a lot of knowledge, I really rely on the people that
are around me. I ask people to show me the data,” Ali observed. Leaders who understand their
strengths and accept their limitations feel confident to act on their values in times of adversity.
Discussion Research Question One
Values and self-efficacy form the foundation of responsible leadership. Self-interests bow
to considerations of other people. Responsible leaders share a theme of doing right by the greater
good of society. Values propel their actions and, in combination with self-efficacy, generate
perseverance in crises. While responsible leaders savor achievement, they regard life as a long-
term experience, a marathon as opposed to a sprint. A lengthy perspective supports their belief in
the inevitability that crises materialize and dissipate. This sense of self-efficacy, with values as a
57

framework, evolves through experiences impacted by environmental factors of community,
culture, family, and role models.
Findings Research Question Two
The study sought participant perceptions of their personal behaviors in the formation of
responsible leadership. Multiple themes emerged from interview questions designed around
vision and goal setting, self-regulation, and stakeholder engagement. The behaviors exemplified
the reciprocal interaction that occurs when personal beliefs of values and self-efficacy engage
with behavior. Goal setting merged with vision and priorities in the conversation, but remained a
critical part of leadership values. All participants reported continuous self-reflection to promote
self-regulation, and a commitment to life-long learning.
Vision
Responsible leadership begins with a vision, a protracted goal that influences decisions
before and during a crisis. Two themes resulted from study participant interviews. Leaders
articulated visions that represented their values in the promotion of humanity. In addition, they
engaged their visions and goals to motivate followers.
Vision as a Reflection of Leaders’ Values
Participants spoke of values as part of a vision that becomes foundational in times of
crisis. The importance granted to values allowed the leader to make bold decisions in tumultuous
environments. “So much of it, again, is your values. Like, are you willing? Do you have
courage?” Matt explained. When stakeholders recognized the values espoused in crises as
consistent components of the leader’s overall vision, rapid acceptance occurred among followers.
Jacob shared how a crisis prompted him to take an action he had long contemplated, based on his
values. Prior to the crisis, he established a vision for his company built on those values. Thus, the
58

conversation in crisis with his stakeholders was easier. When he informed the followers, “I’m
going to do something really radical, I’m going to do this fast,” he reported they looked at him
and responded, “Sure, we’re in, and if there are a little bit of side effects, we’ll deal with them
together.” Likewise, when Charles and his colleagues founded the company he led, the group
early on articulated the heart of its strategy as caring about all stakeholders. “We had this
wonderful values core that we built everything in the company around it,” Charles recalled. In a
crisis, Charles returned to those values and created a vision to navigate difficult situations.
Participants discussed how crises offer an opportunity to execute a vision of management
in tumultuous times, based on values of trust among stakeholders. When Lucas considered his
decisions in a crisis, he believed successful outcomes depended on his ability to establish trust
among diverse stakeholders. “I thought that we could also help build legitimacy through this
tragedy, based on how we handle it, right?” Lucas stated. With transparency in vision and goals,
leaders create trust among their stakeholders. “People knew where my head was,” Albert
declared. In tumultuous times, trust plays a crucial role when leaders ask stakeholders to follow.
Vision and Goals Motivate Stakeholders
Responsible leaders recognize a vision and goals help motivate stakeholders in times of
crises. At the start of trouble, study participants clarified their goals and shared objectives with
stakeholders. “So, the only way I knew how to stay focused was to preemptively declare, ‘This is
what we are working on. This is what success looks like,’” Albert observed. To motivate
stakeholders in crises, leaders need to portray an image that helps stakeholders envision a
positive future beyond the fog of chaos. “What I show people is everything is possible … See the
invisible, do the impossible,” Sue advised. Visions and goals help unify stakeholders in crisis. As
Lucas deployed a vision to maintain resilience among employees in a crisis, he asked himself a
59

question. “How do these people keep showing up every day and doing a good job, as opposed to
showing up and losing their mind and doing a bad job, or not showing up at all?” Lucas asked.
An articulated vision helps stakeholders adapt with efficiency and contributes to
collective self-efficacy. Angela explained that while conditions shift throughout a crisis, her team
held to goals established from the start. The goals were value-based. Sue explained, “You might
change your strategies, cause you’re learning new things. You might change your
communications. But you’re not going to change the commitments, because they’re value
driven.” Clear goals help responsible leaders protect priorities and prevent distraction from
competing requests by people in power positions with selfish interests. Participants discussed the
need to reject competing interests that fell outside the vision. “I was making it clear to the people
I was responsible to, that we would be successful as a team only if we were focused,” Albert
remembered. When a team understands the leader will protect the group, the focus on goals
enhances the collective self-efficacy necessary for achievement.
Self-Regulation
Responsible leaders embrace a growth mindset and strive to improve their leadership
skills. A powerful theme in the research appeared when study participants discussed their
reliance on self-reflection as a guardianship for their behaviors. A second theme centered on
participant reflections of their positionality in the world and its impact on their work. Every
participant described their subservience to a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and included
elements related to the importance of relationships and the need for communication.
Self-Reflection
Responsible leaders believe in self-reflection. Study participants characterized self-
reflection as a learning tool and noted its transformative presence in their leadership journeys.
60

Charles shared, “You’re not going to make sense of the world if you’re just kind of living it and
not thinking about how you interacted with it, right? You have to find time to kind of reflect on
it.” In some cases, self-reflection fits within a grander consideration of how leaders live. “I
always think about what will the last two weeks of my life look like? What will I be able to go
back and think about?” Archi observed. Self-reflection helps leaders develop a vision and goals
and illuminates a path for continuous education. Charles described the need to reserve time to
think about what a leader seeks to accomplish in relation to actual outcomes “so that you’ve got
a frame to go back and say, well, so how did my lived experience compare to my expectations?”
The importance of self-reflection becomes pronounced in a crisis. When pressured to
make decisions without full consideration of stakeholders, participants reported self-reflection as
a tool to stay fixated in the fast-paced, fluid environment. “And so then, how do you pause?
Listen, adjust, go more slowly maybe in areas that’s more painful to co-create. But in this
moment of crisis, that’s what you need,” Jean confirmed. Crises require frequent reflection on
outcomes both positive and negative. “Every day, when it’s so chaotic, you’re forced to at some
point in the day, when you get home, to reflect, how’d we do today?” Lucas acknowledged. He
insisted such self-reflection and examination of errors promote growth. He noted, “The self-
reflection helped us improve that to where we’re at now because there were mistakes made.”
Leaders use self-reflection to review past behaviors, and consider how they appear in the world
today.
Awareness of Positionality
Study participants discussed an awareness of their own positionality in the world as a
triumvirate of self-reflection, self-regulation, and leadership. A leader’s personal intersectionality
of identity informs an awareness of the positionality of others. “I think it’s also a constant
61

reflection on a story in a life of passage, of like migration, of a culture. A lot of reflection that I
have [is] around [a] complexity of identities,” Jean offered. He noted his self-reflection includes
“noticing that some markers that may not be visible, you know, may be an impediment.”
Participants who grew up in other countries and now work in the United States described their
awareness of how they present to others in a foreign cultural context.
Participants reflected on their positionality in relation to helping people. For Albert, this
awareness of positionality manifested in his self-reflection of privilege as a White male raised in
a family with resources. “If you have it, you have it. It’s what you do with it that defines you. So,
there are a lot of people who hoard it and abuse it and take advantage of it out of self-interest,”
Albert stated. Jean discussed the impact of positionality on the interpretation of a crisis and its
impact on stakeholders. “It was a crisis for us, but was it a crisis for the group that we were
supporting?” He explained the reflection prompted him to seek out stakeholders and ask, “What
do you need? What is the crisis for you?” In this case, Jean’s action of reflection led to growth
and success. All participants reported self-reflection as a method to commit to life-long growth.
Life-Long Learners
Responsible leaders promote growth mindsets and embrace life-long learning as it relates
to behavior. Perpetual learning requires more than a daily or post-event reflection and becomes
an endless search for new areas in which to expand. “You should be learning something every
day,” Charles insisted. Personal growth among responsible leaders requires a determined
mindset. Jean discussed “thinking about meeting the moment as much as possible, being flexible,
ready to reinvent yourself, right?” Crises often provide deep moments of self-reflection that lead
to self-regulation. Jean recalled learning to improve his awareness of the deep challenges faced
by diverse stakeholders. “I did not really realize that there could be some organizational trauma
62

and not just personal trauma.” Jean used that moment to ask himself, “So what have we learned
from this? And how are we going to do it differently next time.”
Responsible leaders help colleagues and associates self-regulate and change behaviors.
The process may include asking subordinates to review outcomes based on the leader’s actions.
Information elicited from this process benefits the responsible leader and provides another
learning opportunity. “I have the luxury of often being in meetings together with others and
basically ask the question afterwards, ‘What should we have done differently? Where was I too
negative, or where wasn’t it clear?’” Jacob asked. Participants explored the significance of data
collection and review as a learning tool. Angela shared, “It helps me understand what are we
doing and what are other people doing? And then, what’s working, what’s not working?” For
responsible leaders, their commitment to self-reflection leads to self-regulation, and facilitates
their dedication to the people they serve.
Stakeholder Engagement
Responsible leaders enlist stakeholders in times of crisis. Each study participant reported
purposeful engagement with diverse stakeholders. Participants provided information and listened
to input. Study members identified the need to build relationships with stakeholders as an
essential task in their leadership. Finally, participants agreed responsible leaders should embrace
communication strategies to ensure they meet the expectations of purposeful engagement and
relationship building with diverse stakeholders.
Engagement with Diverse Stakeholders
For responsible leaders, stakeholder engagement relies on two-way communication with
multiple internal and external audiences. In preparation for stakeholder engagement, leaders
consider proximities to the crisis, with some stakeholders further removed but nonetheless
63

impacted. “I think of it as almost like sort of like concentric circles. And so, first of all, who’s on
the front line, who’s closest to the issue?” Jean asked. In a crisis, leaders prioritize stakeholders
so they can provide care under a categorized triage system. Charles described his goal at such
times as, “Let’s figure out how to get the best information we can for them and tell them we
know what’s going on.” To resolve a crisis as a responsible leader requires communication skills
that connect with diverse stakeholders, including those who exist outside of the organization,
though messages may differ. As a public servant, Lucas communicated with his employees,
affiliates, and the residents they supported. While details of his messages shifted as appropriate
for the audience, he did not lose sight of the goal. “The community is very important. They’re
the reason we’re here,” Lucas declared.
As they observe the environment, responsible leaders consider the question of who needs
access to information. Study participants recognized their obligation to speak to people with
contrary viewpoints. “I wanted to challenge ourselves to talk to folks who are on the other side of
the aisle and have very strong views, because I need to hear from them,” Jean insisted. In large
organizations, opinions can multiply and diverge. Responsible leaders maintain their duty to
engage, validate, and manage relevant stakeholders regardless of opinions. “So how do I ensure
that all those different opinions still act in unison in the way we need them to act?” Jean asked.
Time becomes another problem for responsible leaders in crisis. Communication requires
strategy and process, two elements that devour hours. Responsible leaders understand the
pressure of the ticking clock in a crisis may force decisions without the benefit of significant
stakeholder input. Ali explained, “I almost always consult others. I’m not the type of person that
just makes a decision in isolation.” However, she noted a crisis forces a leader “to make an
immediate decision, and you hope you make the best decision at that time.” Study participants
64

agreed that diverse opinions lead to stronger decisions, even in crises. “I just like this idea of as
many different perspectives as we can get on the problem in whatever time period we have that
just gives us that much more information to react to,” Charles declared. Furthermore, when
stakeholders are consulted prior to a decision, they have ownership. “When you bring it forward,
even if they agree with you or disagree with you, they know that you consulted with them, that
you cared enough to think about how it was going to impact them,” Ali reiterated. In their
commitment to the engagement of diverse stakeholders, responsible leaders recognize success
requires trust established through transparency and relationships.
Relationships
Responsible leaders appreciate the importance of relationships. They value people. “As
human beings, we’re interconnected and what one person does has an impact on other people.
That value shows up as respect for people,” Angela observed. Respect starts when responsible
leaders accept they need to focus on other people and not themselves. “It is always: Think about
the other people. Okay, what can they do? It’s not what I can do,” Sue declared. For responsible
leaders, relationships require shared information, celebrations of achievement, and
demonstrations that everyone’s work carries value. Albert explained, “It’s often hard to feel as an
individual connected to the work that you’re doing. And it’s even harder to feel connected to the
ultimate beneficiary of the work that you’re doing.”
Responsible leaders appreciate humanity and discern the role relationships play in
success. “That’s core to any role I’m going to play, recognizing the importance of relationships
and other people working as a team of having folks support you and you supporting others,”
Angela insisted. Relationships demand attention, concentration, and sincerity, but become crucial
to the successful navigation of a crisis. “I think for major things, they come back to being a small
65

group of people who really trust each other. You can often vet the things before you do them, by
just running them by somebody else,” Jacob offered. Once connections become established,
leaders understand the need for continuous communication.
Communication
Responsible leaders use two-way communication with diverse stakeholders during crises.
However, communication requires complex processes to reach, influence, and interact with
stakeholders. Lucas established a communication process that relied on several questions. “Who
do we talk to first? Where do we do it at? How do we make sure the message is consistent,” he
recalled. Leaders benefit when they take preemptive steps to establish communication protocols
for diverse stakeholder groups prior to a crisis. “I can count on one hand the number of times
where it’s only impacted a single stakeholder group,” Charles noted. He built crisis response
structures “around this notion that during a disruption, a mishap, a crisis, there would be a wide
variety of stakeholders that we owed dialogue, that we owed information flow.”
Responsible leaders remain forthright and honest in routine communications. Crises
heighten the need for openness and transparency. “I think as a leader of any organization in a
crisis, you need to be straightforward, upfront, and communicative,” Matt commented. The
process begins with accurate assessments of the challenges, as opposed to minimization or
deflection. “Spend time on naming it. Over communicate,” Jean advised. Participants agreed
effective communication with stakeholders requires truthfulness about a leader’s opinions.
“People know where I stand, but I’m respectful of different positions. I try to be very open and I
think that has gotten me a lot of public credibility in that I’m not hiding my views,” Archi
declared. The process requires the sharing of data. Ali counseled, “The best way to motivate
someone or to persuade someone is to show them the facts, show them the data, give them the
66

information that I have, give them the background, talk about the experience, and what I’ve
seen.” Angela concurred, and related how transparency requires recognition when efforts or
strategies fail. “When you think you’ve made a mistake, acknowledging you’ve made that
mistake.”
Effective communication with diverse stakeholders requires responsible leaders to invite
divergent groups into conversations. Leaders arrive and listen with open minds and hearts. In a
crisis, Jean asked himself, “How do I show up with the greatest humility because they’re the
ones on the front lines. How do I do that? And including naming the power dynamics and trying
to lower them as much as possible.” The communication process reminds the responsible leader
to again consider the benefits of shared decision making. “You don’t pretend you can go it alone.
You can’t really and then make sure you’re creating all kinds of opportunities where you can
listen and learn together,” Angela cautioned. Participants cited an opportunity within crisis
communication and highlighted the occasion to rally people around a common goal. Matt told
his stakeholders, “We are all in this together. I am going to need certain things from you ... All of
us have a role to play.” An appreciation for disparate opinions allows leaders to promote
collaboration as they strive to build human-centered solutions.
Discussion Research Question Two
Responsible leadership behaviors rely on people. The process begins with a vision based
on the leader’s values to establish a baseline relationship that guides followers through a crisis.
All study participants reported they spent time each day in self-reflection. Such activity
accommodated their commitment to continual personal improvement; they adjusted behavior to
improve their performances and outcomes. An awareness of the complexities of stakeholder
engagement motivated their actions. Participants reported they sought input and communicated
67

with a diverse set of stakeholders, inside and outside their organizations. The significance of
stakeholder engagement, combined with the desire for effective communication, produced
foundational behavior as reflected in priorities the leaders credited to other people, beyond
themselves.
Findings Research Question Three
The study examined perceptions of how environmental factors of education, role models,
and organizational cultures impacted the positions of responsible leaders. Study participants
identified education as least significant among major aspects of their leadership development.
Role models played a very significant role in shaping their values and leadership skills, while
organizational culture provided insight into how leaders respond and attempt to shape that
culture based on their values, and how they manage restrictive environments.
Education
Education serves as a core component in a leader’s life trajectory. However, the study
produced unclear findings relevant to the impact of formal education on responsible leadership
development. Participants recounted their educational experiences through the primary and
secondary grades, which in the United States refers to kindergarten through 12
th
grade, and in
higher education. Despite the study’s ambiguity on the impact of formal education, every
participant attended university and obtained postgraduate degrees of various levels.
Education During K-12 Years
School environments impacted the study participants in different ways. However, only
one study member discussed the significance of early education relative to values. Sue received
an opportunity as a young, impoverished girl to attend a private school. She recognized the
advantages of private school in her community, and seized the offer. “I knew education comes
68

first, because that’s my way out,” Sue recalled. Ali and Jacob held leadership positions at their
schools. Ali discussed that while her schools failed to offer a quality education, she did
participate in leadership roles. “I’m sure in those early years, I got a taste of leadership of the
group that would make decisions that were important decisions, or contribute to making things
better at your school,” Ali declared.
Exposure to sports and coaches in the school environment shaped study participants in
their early years. Three leaders described their youthful experiences in athletics as formative to
their adult leadership skills. Charles played three varsity sports in 4 years of high school, and was
captain of his team, which exposed him to older peers and taught him to communicate. “I was a
little more of a lead-by-example, quiet leader kind of a person. And that seemed to work well in
team sports,” Charles observed, noting his leadership style did not change with maturity. Like
Ali, Jacob found school frustrating. However, as with Charles, Jacob discovered a home in
athletics and engaged in leadership roles from age 14 onward. Study participants reported
consistent leadership habits that began in their early years and continued into higher education
and beyond.
Higher Education
Leaders pursue higher education degrees, yet the impact on responsible leadership
development from such attainments remained unclear in the study. Every participant achieved at
least one postgraduate degree. However, only Ali spoke about the impact of her graduate
education on her values. In pursuit of a master’s degree, Ali studied social inequities and
injustice. “When I started learning about how many injustices there were through social welfare,
that really left a strong impact … And it just in my heart felt like I had to be a part of the
solution.” Jean addressed his exposures to languages and international political studies, which
69

reaffirmed interests he discovered in multi-cultural exposures through his family as a child. He
believed the worldly experiences “very much shaped me in confirming that I need always to be
in a global setting for me personally, for my work. That’s just where I felt at home.” Higher
education sharpened career path decisions for participants. Role models formed their values.
Role Models
Responsible leaders benefit from an array of role models who mentor and guide though
young adulthood into professional careers. Every study participant verified the importance of
role models. However, for two study members, formative role models provided examples of
what not to do, as opposed to instilling positive ideals. Another theme involved the influence of
parents who inspire concern for other people and society. In addition, participants credited adults
outside their family as positive influences. Finally, career mentors played a role for every study
participant.
Parents
Parents shape future leaders. Every study member cited a parent figure as a heavily
influential role model. Archi portrayed his parents as “people of incredible influence on me” who
rarely lost their temper, and who valued knowledge, adding “they were the people that made me
who I am.” Participants reported their parents as especially impactful over the values the leaders
established as adults. “I was raised in a family that was very ethical and that really believed in
doing the right thing … There was a lot of love and compassion and a belief in, you know, treat
people well,” Ali declared.
For study participants, parental actions often generated greater influence than spoken
words. Study members were inspired by courageous acts of mothers and fathers. Angela credited
her mother, who broke gender barriers to attain an education after raising a family. Angela
70

appreciated lessons from her mother, taught through demonstration, that included, “Even if what
you’re doing isn’t popular, because people don’t see it as what’s right, if you believe in your
heart that this is the way to move forward, then you will find the courage to move forward.”
Participants noted the parental decision to introduce other adult role models into their children’s
lives made significant impacts. “She allowed other people to come into my life and be like
mentors to me … She allowed the community to pour into me,” Lucas recalled of his mother. As
in the example of Lucas, study participants benefitted from the proximity to adults introduced by
parents and family members.
Non-Family Members as Role Models in Youth
Non-family members also serve as role models to leaders in their youth. Jean talked
about the diverse collection of friends and colleagues favored by his mother. “That was the kind
of crowd and influence I had that was always talking international stuff, always talking in
different languages,” Jean noted. Jacob learned from people who worked at his school alongside
his parents, but who held different views. “It was really important that some of the people I’d
heard from were not my parents’ cup of tea, but still took me totally seriously and treated me
well, and were highly professional,” Jacob explained.
As young people, study participants learned from role models in environments beyond
their family homesteads. Two leaders cited influential educators from their teen years. Sue spoke
of one teacher who was also a nun. One day, the woman learned Sue and her friends engaged in
inappropriate behavior. Sue feared the worst from the nun. “She purposely ignored that and gave
us a chance of focusing on our education,” Sue remembered. Sports coaches were well
positioned as positive role models. Archi recalled his teenage years and spoke of a coach who
told him to focus first on family, second on education, and third on sport. “He had a very clear
71

perception of his values, and I grew a lot with him. I learned so much from him,” Archi declared.
Sometimes, leaders learned more from observation than lectures. Matt talked about a neighbor
who stood up to bullies. He shared, “I hope someday people think the same of me. That I stood
up for them when I saw an injustice or something that just didn’t seem right.” Role models
shifted as study participants matured, replaced in later years by career mentors who offered
advice and support through leadership development.
Career Mentors
Role models extend beyond childhood and into careers. As with parents, career mentors
and their actions and behavior, rather than words, often inspire future leaders. Angela mentioned
one role model as “a person who led with values, like never, ever wavered from a set of values.
There’s no decision he made that wasn’t rooted in values. I think that’s also hard to do, but it’s
important.” Study participants transformed lessons learned from mentors into leadership styles.
Albert patterned his emphasis on vision and goals after a mentor who exhibited the same
characteristics. Albert explained the mentor was known to say, “What are we doing? Is what
you’re proposing to do in service of why we’re here? If not, then we’re not going to do it.”
Albert repeated the mentor’s words throughout his career.
Career models do not always assume the identity of a positive force in a leader’s life.
Study participants sometimes learned as much from people who blundered as from successful
mentors. Angela reminisced, “I think I had more anti-mentors than pro-mentors … Because I’m
a reflector, it did lead me to think a lot about why am I tempted to not want to work for this
person.” She described the benefits of observation and noted, “Just as in watching leaders who
act responsibly, lessons can be learned from the actions of leaders who act irresponsibly, who
yell and scream at other people, or who failed to make decisions.” The lesson, Angela confirmed,
72

was obvious. “I also had a lot of leaders that taught me, I never want to do that.” The presence of
positive and negative behavior examples in youth and career development played an important
role for study participants in the formation of human-centered values. As they advanced into
leadership roles, participants translated their values into the context of organizational culture, an
arena of opportunity for responsible leaders.
Organizational Culture
Responsible leaders view organizational culture as impactful. Two themes appeared from
the study’s examinations of culture. First, participants recognized they possessed the ability to
shape culture, and proceeded with the process of change. Second, participants identified the
important role played by organizational culture within a team’s environment and success.
Leaders Shape Culture
Responsible leaders understand they perform a critical role in shaping their
organization’s cultural environment. Company founders enjoy the benefit of creating cultural
parameters at an organization’s birth. “Do you establish a culture where it’s okay with corridor
discussions and backstabbing, or a culture where it’s okay if you can get away with it, if you
don’t get caught?” Jacob asked. He continued with a follow-up question, “Or, do you establish a
culture where here we’re doing the right thing?” Responsible leaders align culture with strategy.
Charles described the creation of his company’s values as “not just a cultural story, but a
strategic story,” and supplied a narrative. “This is how we’re going to compete, and this is how
we’re going to operate, and this is how we’re going to hire people,” he explained.
The demands of a crisis may require a leader to shift the culture to address the situation.
A culture of gratitude can support employee performance and retention in a crisis. Albert
recognized he worked inside a culture where “we don’t get to give the recognition and
73

acknowledgement to the team for the job well done.” As a responsible leader, he shifted this
narrative and created a culture where the team felt appreciated. Other participants referred to
occasions when the shift of culture was not a change but rather a reinforcement of values
introduced by the leader. In Angela’s case, she believed in a shared process of making decisions.
Her approach intensified during a crisis. “We had to try to create an environment where people
could deliberate and feel comfortable within the power dynamics that were in the room.” The
leader’s behavior in the creation of a culture alters the team environment.
Organizational Cultures Impact Team Environments
As leaders of organizations, study participants perceived the impact and influence teams
absorb from organizational cultures and politics. Previous organizational environments lingered,
and years later still affected how study participants led. Albert reported his former company’s
culture “of how to think about setting objectives and key findings, to the extent that if I am any
good at what I do today, it is largely born of those interactions.” In some examples, the culture
supports a leader to push for decisions that enhance the common good. “In my case, I felt like I
had the backing of the founders, and also the agency to go to do more … to bring my own spin to
the values that made the organization,” Jean explained. A positive culture inspires organizational
effectiveness. “It’s easier when you have a healthy culture in an organization where people get
along and they enjoy working together, and there’s this collaborative spirit and joy and we’re all
kind of excited,” Ali observed.
Negative organizational environments force leaders to summon their values. Responsible
leaders maintain values and goals, but success becomes difficult in a contentious atmosphere.
Ally insisted a negative cultural environment would not change her decisions as a leader. “It
makes it harder because you’re going to have more people that are going to disagree with you, or
74

people that are not going to follow your direction. But I don’t think it changes how I lead.” Study
participants acknowledged they required a compatible organizational environment to maintain
their values and viability as leaders. “I discovered about myself that I need to be in an operating
environment that assumes that if we align incentives and we align work environment structures,
people can do their best work,” Albert emphasized. Responsible leaders understand and reflect
on the impact of culture on their decisions. However, they prioritize their values and goals, an
emphasis that manages the impact of organizational culture on their decisions, and ultimately on
their stakeholders.
Discussion Research Question Three
Of the three environmental areas examined in the study, role models produced the most
significant markers in the development of leaders who make decisions based on the betterment of
society. Parents played a large role in values for 9 of the 10 study participants. While parents
held eminent positions, other role models also influenced the youthful future leaders.
Organizational cultures played a more modest role. Leaders recognized that in their positions,
they had authority to bend organizational cultures and create better environments for people they
served. Nine of 10 leaders reported the necessity to navigate around political obstacles in times
of crises. At these occasions, they relied upon their values to maintain sight of the most urgent
concerns of their stakeholders.
Summary
The reciprocal interaction between personal beliefs, behaviors, and environment shapes
leaders who act responsibly in times of turbulence and crises. The process starts with the
recognition of values based on people, their wellbeing, and life circumstances, now and for
future generations. Bandura’s SCT provides a framework that recognizes the complex factors
75

that co-create human thought processes and behaviors as they engage with their environments.
Every participant in the study faced the challenge of leadership in times of turbulence and crises.
All had the courage to maintain values tethered to humanity as they engaged with a diverse set of
stakeholders, inside and outside of their organizations.
The study participants’ courage stemmed from childhood experiences and role models
who demonstrated, through actions, stories, and messages, the advantage of placing others before
oneself. Later role models continued to shape the leaders. However, a second significant
consideration involved the commitment to self-reflection and self-improvement, where values
held by responsible leaders resulted in stakeholder benefits. The factors coalesced to support
each leader’s sense of self-efficacy, which in turn enhanced their ability to guide in a crisis. The
courage to act on behalf of the greater good in turbulence manifested in the leader’s commitment
to a value-based vision, relationships, and a communication strategy, factors that combined to
produce a positive organizational culture.
Leaders are not born, but rather develop over time through interactions with role models
and experiences. The interactions lead to responsible behaviors shaped by values and supported
by self-efficacy and self-reflection. The perceptions of participants in the study offered an
opportunity to view the complexities of the human experience through the formation of leaders
who support a better world. The lessons bring validation to actions that support the identification
and development of future leaders who act responsibly in times of crises.

76

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The study examined the complex interactions between thoughts, behaviors, and the
environment that work to develop responsible leaders who guide with human-centered values
and stakeholder engagement as they navigate crises. With SCT as a framework, the study
evaluated the experiences, perceptions, and ideas of 10 individuals who led responsibly during
periods of tumult. As crises threatened to disrupt their organizations, these leaders prioritized
values, engaged diverse groups of stakeholders in meaningful conversations, and communicated
at critical junctures. To significant degrees, the leaders found opportunities in crises to unify
people, strengthen institutional cultures, and fortify their organizations. From the insights
discerned in the study, four recommendations emerged for organizations that hope to develop
and hire responsible leaders.
Maak and Pless (2022b) argued organizations need to identify individuals with aptitude
and potential for responsible leadership, and help such people develop competencies. Since the
turn of this century, organizations have looked for methods to support the development of
leaders who act responsibly (Pless et al., 2011). Although developmental psychology
acknowledges significant behavioral growth occurs in childhood and adolescence, the growth
path continues through a lifetime (Castillo et al., 2020; Maak & Pless, 2022b). Perpetual
developmental patterns provide organizations with options on how to ensure the presence of
responsible leadership. However, discrepancies between the leadership that presents today in the
field and the scholarship of theories prompt questions about current approaches to leadership
development (Kellerman, 2012; Ruben & Gigliotti, 2019). As society continues to evolve amid
technological advances, climate change, social unrest, and unstable political situations, this
moment provides an opportunity to rethink approaches to leadership.
77

The final chapter of the study provides a path forward through four recommended
actions, along with suggestions for future research. Recommendations begin with a call to action
to reassess current approaches to leadership development in higher education. From there, the
advisements move to encourage organizations to establish protocols within hiring practices to
ensure the identification of leaders who, when challenged by difficult decisions, rely on values
that support the betterment of society and the public served. The study proposes that
organizations invest in experiential learning that allows current and future leaders to experience
the environments of their community members, customers, and constituents. Finally, responsible
leaders require social networks that model and reinforce the leadership traits valued in today’s
world. The following section provides a detailed discussion of these recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Responsible Leadership in Higher Education
The first recommendation advocates a call to action for higher education leaders to
ensure their programs support the development of responsible leaders. As this study found,
responsible leadership requires individuals who prioritize values that support humanity. Within
this practice, the responsible leader solicits multiple viewpoints when faced with challenges to
leadership and organization. Every participant in the study described their values and concerns
for other people as materialized in youth through complex interactions with role models and their
environment. The participants interviewed held multiple degrees of higher education, but only
one leader pointed to the academy as influential on their values or leadership behaviors.
Although the study represents only 10 viewpoints, the lack of significance attributed to the
influence of higher education on the development of responsible leadership values and
approaches to stakeholder engagement raises the question of missed opportunity.
78

Higher education leadership courses provide a chance to support the development of
responsible leaders. Lessons should extend beyond an emphasis on managerial effectiveness to
encompass the development of individuals poised to make ethical choices on behalf of
constituents, communities, and the environment (Newstead et al., 2021). Furthermore, course
designers need to expand their curriculums toward an approach that recognizes leadership only
takes place via relationships with followers (Kellerman, 2012; Newstead et al., 2021). In this
approach, leadership courses connect individual values with contributions to the people they
serve.
Higher education leadership programs need to determine whether their curriculum and
courses produce behavioral change that supports the development of responsible leaders. A
starting point exists where higher education leadership programs review and adopt the Principles
of Responsible Leadership Management Education (PRME) developed through the UN Global
Compact and aligned with the UN SDGs. As of 2018, the adoption of the six PRME principles
by institutes of higher learning remained limited to the “Global North” (Cullen, 2020, p. 767). A
second area of growth for higher education programs lies in the curriculum and pedagogical
approaches to leadership development. Cullen’s (2020) review of responsible leadership
development scholarship identified evidence that traditional pedagogical approaches failed to
cultivate responsible leadership values. Active learning may have more profound impacts on the
development of responsible leadership competencies as defined by PRME than more passive
approaches (Erskine & Johnson, 2012).
To instill human focused values, leadership programs need to mirror the complexity of
today’s society, emphasize relationships, and embrace active learning approaches (McCauley &
Palus, 2021). A societal perspective necessitates a shift from traditional readings and lectures to
79

courses that ask students to place themselves in the contexts of the problems they seek to solve
and the people they hope to serve to learn values based on humanity. The ability to engage in a
contemporary, vicarious experience, and practice leadership under the tutelage of role models
who provide verbal coaching, enhances self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Furthermore, higher
education courses need to propagate the skills of self-reflection and communication with diverse
groups. The numerous hours students spend in higher education leadership programs present an
underutilized opportunity to develop leaders prepared to act responsibly in tumultuous
environments. Although this recommendation profers the goal of the development of responsible
leaders in the future, it fails to support the immediate leadership ambitions of organizations, a
problem rectified through the hiring process.
Recommendation 2: Hire Responsible Leaders
To address the current need for responsible leaders who support organizations in today’s
tumultuous environment, the second recommendation calls on organizations to create proactive
systems to hire responsible leaders. The process begins with the questions that formed the basis
of the study, inquiries that examined beliefs, behaviors, and environments. Collins (2001) argued
great organizations start their strategic approach with getting “the right people on the bus” (p.
41). He insisted the right people attract other right people who want to work with team members
who hold similar values. Populating the bus with responsible leaders requires a rigorous hiring
process that investigates the past environments of candidates and explores questions pertinent to
the development and deployment of values, interactions with stakeholders, and the processes of
self-reflection and regulation.
Voegtlin et al. (2020) suggested organizations can hire responsible leaders based on
inquiries into past performance as it related to managerial decisions relevant to the organization,
80

employees, and wider community. The approach includes research that probes the candidate’s
experiences on the establishment of a value-based vision and engagement with stakeholders.
Furthermore, organizations can inquire into experiences beyond formal career roles, such as
volunteerism and interests in social responsibility (Freire & Gonçalves, 2021).
Muff et al. (2020) declared organizations need the ability to test for responsible
leadership traits to increase the presence of desired competencies among senior executives. Muff
and other scholars developed an online responsible leadership assessment survey, “Competency
Assessment for Responsible Leadership” (CARL) (Muff et al., 2022, p. 274). The tool assesses
15 responsible leadership competencies with 45 questions. The results measure stakeholder
relations, ethics and values, self-awareness, systems thinking, and change and innovation in
relation to knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The tool provides another means to measure
responsible leaders as identified in the study, and to build organizational environments that
support a vision based on the common good of society. The tool can be used in the future to
assess a responsible leader’s development through experiential learning programs.
Recommendation 3: Experiential Learning for Responsible Leadership
As organizations strive to build internal capacity, the third recommendation centers on
the development of and access to experiential learning opportunities that expose staff to the lived
realities of people and communities served. The findings in the study suggested individuals learn
responsible leadership through role models and their environment in youth. However, Maak and
Pless (2022b) insisted that while prospective responsible leaders must hold basic social
emotional intelligence traits and the desire to grow, cogent development can take place later in
life through experiential learning. Cullen’s (2020) review of responsible management education
research noted traditional models of leadership education fail to grow values that support the
81

betterment of society and the engagement of diverse stakeholders. Cullen believed a better road
to cultivation of values includes pedogeological approaches that place people in experiences to
create interactions with other organizations and individuals from different backgrounds.
Experiential programs provide beneficial opportunities for trainees to physically place
themselves in underserved communities and encounter the impact of organizational decisions on
specific groups (Castillo et al., 2020; Pless et al., 2011). Participants endure limitations in
income, local quality of resources and access, and public works. The placement intends to open
hearts and minds to the needs and challenges faced daily by persons less fortunate (Castillo et al.,
2020; Pless et al., 2011). Proximity to the environment helps in the development of
compassionate competencies (Castillo et al., 2020). Based on the study findings, professional
development options should include training and time for self-reflection that leads to self-
regulation, as well as skilled-based communications.
Maak and Pless (2006) discussed the PriceWaterhouseCooper’s Ulysses Program as an
exemplar of experiential training. The program sent leadership prospects to developing
communities, where they worked with disparate stakeholders toward solutions that improved
conditions in the area (Maak & Pless, 2006). Project examples include the lessening of poverty
in East Timor, a child helpline in India, and HIV/AIDS prevention in Uganda (Pless et al., 2011).
The 2-month experience featured a collaboration with a nonprofit organization, along with
individual coaching and feedback, team building, reflexive exercises, yoga, meditation, and
storytelling opportunities (Pless et al., 2011). Learning occurred not only through observation
and experience, but in self-reflection and discussions (Pless et al., 2011). Organizations can
follow the Ulysses program as a model to identify experiential experiences that align with their
mission and vision to support the development of future responsible leaders.
82

Recommendation 4: Responsible Leadership Social Networks
Leaders learn from others. Study participants referenced the lessons learned through
collegial exchanges, and numerous scholars believe leadership growth relies in part on guidance
from peers and colleagues (Kempster & Stewart, 2010; Smith et al., 2019). The study confirmed
findings by Maak and Pless (2006a), who stated responsible leaders help others in the
organization develop responsible leadership competencies. Peer learning networks support this
engagement through a community of practice (Smith et al., 2019). Furthermore, peers provide
support systems in a crisis, as leaders require a network of people to help with the navigation of
complex situations (Ellemers & de Gilder, 2022).
Bandura SCT advanced the concept of interpersonal networks. Bandura connected the
importance of role modeling to the passage of values and behaviors between individuals. The
opportunity for change sparks within such transfers. Bandura (1988) stated most learning occurs
in experiences through observation, practice, and feedback. As individuals learn from one
another, they engage in self-reflection that leads to self-regulation and self-efficacy. Formalized
social networks can further support responsible leadership traits and behaviors.
Studies on peer learning and existing examples of networks illustrate how support
systems strengthen a community of responsible leaders. Smith et al. (2019) examined a peer
learning community of about 25 owner-managers who participated in one program for 10
months. The program included reflection, group work, and time to practice lessons. The scholars
argued learning emerged through co-constructed meanings and shared knowledge, as well as the
opportunity to contribute to a fellow participant’s growth. As an additional bonus, the program
enhanced the self-efficacy of the leaders. Prominent responsible leadership networks, such as the
83

Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative, the PRME, and the BMW Foundation Responsible
Leaders Network, offer lessons as to the implementation of this recommendation.
Limitations and Delimitations
Although the study added to the research literature on responsible leadership, the design
results in limitations and delimitations. Brutus et al. (2013) advocated for the need for scholars to
self-report limitations of their studies through dedicated sections. The authors asserted a scholar
must go beyond a simple explanation of the limitations, and spell out possible consequences to
external validity concerns, along with the author’s steps to abate personal biases. Theofanidis
and Fountouki (2018) provided definitions of both limitations and delimitations in a study. The
authors explained limitations refer to weaknesses in the study that the researcher cannot control.
For example, external factors at the time of an interview could impact a participant’s response. In
contrast, Theofanidis and Fountouki stated delimitations refer to those aspects of the study that
the researcher does control, such as the theoretical framework or the research questions.
Tsui (2022) observed researchers need awareness that all reality depends on the context
in which it takes place. In a study as in life, Bandura’s (1986) SCT of the triadic reciprocation of
personal, behavioral, and environmental factors impacts how the researcher approaches a study
and how participants report perceptions that lead to data reporting, analysis, and conclusions. In
terms of limitations of the study, the research depends on the knowledge reported by the
participants at the time of the interview. Theofanidis and Fountouki (2018) cautioned
environmental factors that take place around the time of the study, such as the participant having
a sleepless night or emergency at work, could impact the information reported the day of the
interview. In addition, each crisis under discussion involved unique circumstances that could
influence the analysis (Coldwell et al., 2012). Finally, the study focused on the perceptions of
84

responsible leaders. Boulding (1961) offered a cautionary note to the placement of too much
meaning on perceptions when facts exist only as information rendered through the mind. Such
limitations require awareness by the researcher to recognize and identify broad generalizations
(Plakoyiannaki et al., 2019).
While the limitations of the study involved personal, behavioral, and environmental
factors beyond the researcher’s control, the delimitations in the study reflected the researcher’s
choices. For example, one delimitation included the purposeful sampling approach. Patton
(2002) considered purposeful sampling as an opportunity to identify subjects who could provide
rich, descriptive details. However, this approach may have excluded less-exuberant figures as
study participants. Another delimitation exists in the biases and positionality of the people
involved in conducting the research (Tsui, 2022). In addition, the field of responsible leadership
theory exists as a complex and emerging domain within leadership studies (Miska &
Mendenhall, 2018; Tsui, 2022; Voegtlin et al., 2019). Therefore, another delimitation in the
study involved choices the researcher made in relation to the information presented and the areas
highlighted within responsible leadership scholarship. In consideration of the possible limitations
and delimitations, the study sought to identify patterns of thought, behavior, and environment as
perceived by participants to better understand what creates a responsible leader.
Recommendations for Future Research
Responsible leadership continues its evolution as an emerging field, and as such offers
rich possibilities for future research. The limited amount of empirical evidence related to
responsible leadership prompts questions as to whether the ideas remain in the arena of
hypotheses and deserve more tests and research to evolve into theories. The support of more
responsible leadership in the world requires a deeper knowledge of the components that create
85

responsible leaders. Stories of lived experiences by responsible leaders provide a bounty of
lessons. Researchers and writers need to continue to gather these stories, especially from leaders
who transported their experiences across gender, racial, religious, and economic divides that in
previous generations eliminated entire groups of people from potential leadership consideration.
The study showed culture maintains a large imprint on the establishment of values, and thus
deserves attention in research on the development and propagation of responsible leaders.
The study’s demonstration that life experiences shaped these leaders, as opposed to
higher education or formal adult development programs, likewise warrants attention. While
research on experiential learning opportunities offers evidence of hope for the ability to teach
human-centered values to adults, additional studies can provide insights into how to change
hearts and minds influenced by years of experiences. Institutions of higher education, with
programs dedicated to leadership, can improve by turning their scholarship inward to examine
their strategies to build leaders who responsibly manage contemporary crises and political
divisions. Finally, research on responsible leadership can employ existing theories as
frameworks that, as with SCT, explore the complexities of the human experience.
Conclusion
At this writing, impactful events shake humanity at a relentless pace. Climate change
produces soaring temperatures. Political sensibilities in the United States stand bitter and
divided. A war of Russian aggression rages in Ukraine. Generative artificial intelligence enters
mainstream environments and creates questions that challenge the foundations of technology,
from future applications to responsible usage. Questions abound as to whether flaws pervade
current leadership theories, including those framed as responsible leadership, as society evolves
and leadership success and failure test hypotheses old and new. The sea of possibility expands,
86

yet secure harbors beyond the horizon remain uncharted. Now is the time to engage in actions
that place more responsible leaders at the forefront. Success requires a collective approach from
academia, organizations private, nonprofit, and public, and directors at every level to identify,
select, and develop responsible leaders prepared to act in crises on behalf of people and the
planet.
The study identified several potential ignition points in the development of tomorrow’s
responsible leaders who can navigate through a crisis. However, if reduced to a single attribute,
the research concluded an indispensable ingredient for responsible leadership in crises manifests
in the belief that people matter. Armed with that foundational conviction, the responsible leader
exhibits the self-efficacy to summon the courage to face today’s tempestuous politics, make
decisions to lift all constituents, and shape a more prosperous, ecumenical future. A responsible
leader regards any crisis as an opportunity to do right by the people they serve.

87

References
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for
public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to
turbulent problems. Public Management Review, 23(7), 949–960.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1820272
Aspling, A. (2022, May 21). Global responsibility and globally responsible leadership.
https://www.globalfocusmagazine.com/global-responsibility-and-globally-responsible-
leadership/
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.19
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3),
265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
Beck, M. W. (2023). There’s one big climate fight that California is losing. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-01-22/california-flooding-erosion-risk-
climate-change-adaptation
Berson, Y ., Halevy, N., Shamir, B., & Erez, M. (2015). Leading from different psychological
distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and
88

follower motivation. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 143–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.011
Black Lives Matter (n.d.). About. https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Boulding, K. E. (1961). The image: Knowledge in life and society. University of Michigan Press.
Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions in
scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39(1), 48–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455245
Cameron, K. S., Kim, M. U., & Whetten, D. A. (1987). Organizational effects of decline and
turbulence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(2), 222–240.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393127
Castillo, M. M., Sánchez, I. D., & Dueñas‐Ocampo, S. (2020). Leaders do not emerge from a
vacuum: Toward an understanding of the development of responsible leadership.
Business and Society Review, 125(3), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12214
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Clarke, B., Otto, F., Stuart-Smith, R., & Harrington, L. (2022). Extreme weather impacts of
climate change: An attribution perspective. Environmental Research: Climate, 1(1),
12001–. https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ac6e7d
Clegg, S., Crevani, L., Uhl-Bien, M., & By, R. T. (2021). Changing leadership in changing times.
Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1880092
89

Coldwell, D.A., Joosub, T., & Papageorgiou, E. (2012). Responsible leadership in organizational
crises: An analysis of the effects of public perceptions of selected SA business
organizations’ reputations. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 133–144.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1110-8
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap--and others don’t (1st
ed.). HarperBusiness.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204932
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31(3), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9420-y
Crawford, L.M. & Knight Lynn, L. (2019). Chapter 10: Interviewing essentials for new
researchers. In G. J. Burkholder, K. A. Cox, L. M. Crawford & J. H. Hitchcock (Eds.),
Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 147-
159). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Crosweller, M. & Tschakert, P. (2021). Disaster management leadership and policy making: A
critical examination of communitarian and individualistic understandings of resilience
and vulnerability. Climate Policy, 21(2), 203–221.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1833825
90

Cullen, J. G. (2020). Varieties of responsible management learning: A review, typology and
research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(4), 759-773.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04362-x
Drucker, P. (1993). Managing in turbulent times. Butterworth Heinemann.
Dunlap, R. E., Keith Grieneeks, J., & Rokeach, M. (1983). Human values and pro-environmental
behavior. In W. D. Conn (Ed.), Energy and material resources (1st ed., pp. 145–168).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429049521-8
Dupree, C. H., Fiske, S. T. (2019). Self-presentation in interracial settings: The competence
downshift by White liberals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 579–
604. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000166
Edelman. (2022). 2022 Edelman trust barometer. https://www.edelman.com/trust/2022-trust-
barometer
Edward Freeman, R. & Auster, E. R. (2022). Values, authenticity, and responsible leadership. In
N. M. Pless & T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible leadership (2nd ed., pp. 117-132). Rutledge.
Ellemers, N. & de Gilder, D. (2022). The moral organization: Key issues, analyses, and
solutions. Springer.
England, G.W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of Management
Journal, 10(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/255244
Erskine, S. E., & Bilimoria, D. (2019). White allyship of Afro-Diasporic women in the
workplace: A transformative strategy for organizational change. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 26(3), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819848993
91

Erskine, L. & Johnson, S. D. (2012). Effective learning approaches for sustainability: A student
perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 87(4), 198–205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.590162
European Foundation of Management Development. (n.d.). EFMD and responsible management.
https://www.efmdglobal.org/about-efmd-global/
Freire, C., & Gonçalves, J. (2021). The relationship between responsible leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. Sustainability, 13(9),
4705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094705
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling
societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management
Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007
Global Health Index. (2019). Global health security index: Building collective action and
accountability. https://www.ghsindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-Global-
Health-Security-Index.pdf
Grubb, M., Okereke, C., Arima, J., Bosetti, V ., Chen, Y ., Edmonds, J., Gupta, S., Köberle, A.,
Kverndokk, S., Malik, A. & Sulistiawati, L. (2022). Introduction and framing. In P.R.
Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S.
Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley (Eds.),
IPCC, 2022: Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of
working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.og/10.1017/9781009157926.003
Haque, A. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and the role of responsible leadership in health care:
Thinking beyond employee well-being and organisational sustainability. International
92

Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance Incorporating Leadership in Health Services,
34(1), 52-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-09-2020-0071
Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. HarperCollins Publishers.
Kempster, S. & Stewart, J. (2010). Becoming a leader: A co-produced autoethnographic
exploration of situated learning of leadership practice. Management Learning, 41(2),
205–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609355496
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1994). The leadership mystique. Academy of Management Perspectives,
8(3), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1994.9503101181
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Incorporating diverse voices. The Journal of Higher
Education (Columbus), 71(6), 722–722.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780840
Klenke, K., Martin, S. S., & Wallace, J. R. (2016). Qualitative research in the study of
Leadership (2nd ed.). Emerald Publishing.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006a). Responsible leadership. Routledge.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006b). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
006-9047-z
Maak, T. & Pless, N. M. (2009). Business leaders as citizens of the world: Advancing humanism
on a global scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 537–550.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0122-0
Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2022a). Introduction. In N. M. Pless & T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible
leadership (2nd ed., pp. 1-17). Rutledge.
93

Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2022b). Responsible leadership: A relational approach. In N. M. Pless &
T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible leadership (2nd ed., pp. 39-57). Rutledge.
Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Wohlgezogen, F. (2021). The fault lines of leadership: Lessons from
the global COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 66-86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861724
MacTaggart, R. L. & Lynham, S. A. (2018). An integrative literature review of responsible
leadership: Knowns, unknowns, and implications. Journal of Leadership, Accountability
and Ethics, 15(3), 56–69.
Marques, T., Reis, N., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2018). Responsible leadership research: A bibliometric
review. BAR, Brazilian Administration Review, 15(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-
7692bar2018170112
Marton, K. (2022). The chancellor: The remarkable odyssey of Angela Merkel. Simon &
Schuster.
Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella, E.
T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: Volume 3, 21st century
evidence that higher education works (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C.D. & Palus, C. J. (2021). Developing the theory and practice of leadership
development: A relational view. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 101456–.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101456
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mirvis, P., Steenkamp, Y. & de Jongh, D. (2022). Responsible leadership in context. In N. M.
Pless & T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible leadership (2nd ed., pp. 347-369). Rutledge.
94

Miska, C., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2018). Responsible leadership: A mapping of extant research
and future directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 117-134.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2999-0
Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R. H. (2021). The psychodynamics of enlightened leadership: Coping
with chaos. Springer International.
Morello-Frosch, R. & Obasogie, O.K. (2023). The climate gap and the color line: Racial health
inequities and climate change. The New England Journal of Medicine. 388(10), 943-949.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2213250
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Chapter 3: Research design and research methods. In Integrating
qualitative and quantitative methods (pp. 45-62). Sage.
Muff, K., Delacoste, C., & Dyllick, T. (2022). Responsible leadership competencies in leaders
around the world: Assessing stakeholder engagement, ethics and values, systems thinking
and innovation competencies in leaders around the world. Corporate Social-
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 273-292.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2216
Muff, K., Liechti, A., & Dyllick, T. (2020). How to apply responsible leadership theory in
practice: A competency tool to collaborate on the sustainable development goals.
Corporate Social-Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2254–2274.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1962
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (2023). Criminal justice fact sheet.
https://naacp.org/resources/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
Newstead, T., Dawkins, S., Macklin, R., & Martin, A. (2021). We don’t need more leaders – We
need more good leaders. Advancing a virtues-based approach to leader(ship)
95

development. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 101312–.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101312
Oliver, A.G., Pfarrer, M. D., & Neville, F. (2022). Grand challenges and female leaders: An
exploration of relational leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. Business & Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221141880
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. The Academy of
Management Review, 23(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/259099
Penn, I. & Eavis, P. (2020, June 18). PG&E pleads guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter in Camp
Fire case. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/business/energy-
environment/pge-camp-fire-california-wildfires.html
Peters, B.G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a
research program. Policy & Society, 36(3), 385–396.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633
Plakoyiannaki, E., Wei, T., & Prashantham, S. (2019). Rethinking qualitative scholarship in
emerging markets: Researching, theorizing, and reporting. Management and
Organization Review, 15(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2019.27
Pless, N. M. (2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Role identity and motivational
drivers: The case of dame Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop. Journal of Business
Ethics, 74(4), 437-456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9518-x
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2011). Responsible leadership: Pathways to the future. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1114-4
96

Pless, N. M. & Schneider, R. (2022). The Ulysses Program and the development of globally
responsible leaders in a VUCA world. In N. M. Pless & T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible
Leadership (2nd ed., pp. 428-444). Rutledge.
Pless, N. M., Sengupta, A., Wheeler, M. A., & Maak, T. (2021). Responsible leadership and the
reflective CEO: Resolving stakeholder conflict by imagining what could be done. Journal
of Business Ethics, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04865-6
Roberts, R.E. (2020). Qualitative interview questions: Guidance for novice researchers.
Qualitative Report, 25(9), 3185–3203. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4640
Rockenbach, R. N. (2020). Character education for the public good: The evolution of character
capacities in and beyond college. Journal of College and Character, 21(1), 6–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2019.1696834
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
Ross, D., Leonard, B. & Inayaullah, S. (2022). Leadership beyond the great pause: Climate
change and other wicked problems. Journal of Future Studies, 26(4), 15-22.
https://jfsdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/JFS-15-22.pdf
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright.
Ruben, B. D. & Gigliotti, R. A. (2021). Explaining incongruities between leadership theory and
practice: Integrating theories of resonance, communication, and systems. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 42(6), 942–957. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-
20210072
97

Saks, M. (2022). Responsible leadership. In M. Saks (Ed.), Responsible leadership: Essential to
the achievement of the UN sustainable development goals. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003129189
Schein, E. & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5
th
ed.). John Wiley &
Sons.
Schroeder, P. & Dilts Marshall, E. (2021, September 1). Analysis: Wells Fargo’s long road to
repair extends with prospect of more penalties. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/wells-fargos-long-road-repair-extends-with-
prospect-more-penalties-2021-09-01/
Schunk, D.H. & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
Schunk, D. H. & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R.M. Ryan
(Ed.) The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M.,
Some, P., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., &
Malley, J. (2022). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of
working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001
98

Smith, S., Kempster, S., & Wenger-Trayner, E. (2019). Developing a program community of
practice for leadership development. Journal of Management Education, 43(1), 62–88.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562918812143
Smith, G.S., Anjum, E., Francis, C., Deanes, L., & Acey, C. (2022). Climate change,
environmental disasters, and health inequities: The underlying role of structural
inequalities. Current Environmental Health Reports, 9(1), 80–89.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-022-00336-w
Spring, J. H. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the
education of dominated cultures in the United States (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Stahl, G. K., & Sully De Luque, M. S. (2014). Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A
research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 28(3), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0126
Staller, K.M. (2021). Big enough? Sampling in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work:
Research and Practice, 20(4), 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211024516
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing 7(3), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Tinson, C. M. (2017). Race towards freedom: W. E. B. Du Bois and the tradition of fugitive
black study. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(3), 294-299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1336501
Tsui, A. S. (2022). Reflection on the study of responsible leadership. In N. M. Pless & T. Maak
(Eds.), Responsible leadership (2nd ed., pp. 77-96). Rutledge.
99

Udwadia, F. E. & Mitroff, I. I. (1991). Crisis management and the organizational mind: Multiple
models for crisis management from field data. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, 40(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(91)90066-O
Uhl-Bien, M. (2021). Complexity leadership and followership: Changed leadership in a changed
world. Journal of Change Management, 21(2), 144-162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1917490
Ulmer, W. (2020). Leader-to-leader: Reflexive leadership in the midst of COVID-19 and social
unrest. Journal of Social Change, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2020.13.1.02
UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
UN. (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-
2022.pdf
UN News. (2020, September 20). Millionth death from COVID-19 “an agonizing milestone,”
UN Secretary-General. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/09/1074102
Unruh, L., Allin, S., Marchildon, G., Burke, S., Barry, S., Siersbaek, R., Thomas, S., Rajan, S.,
Koval, A., Alexander, M., Merkur, S., Webb, E., & Williams, G. A. (2022). A
comparison of 2020 health policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada,
Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Health Policy, 126(5),
427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.06.012
USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. (2022). The Polarization Index.
University of Southern California. https://thepolarizationindex.com
100

van de Loo, E. & Lorch, T. (2022). Developing responsible leaders. In N. M. Pless & T. Maak
(Eds.), Responsible leadership (2nd ed., pp. 279 - 291). Rutledge.
Veetikazhi, R. & Krishnan, G. (2019). Wells Fargo: Fall from great to miserable: A case study
on corporate governance failures. South Asian Journal of Business and Management
Cases, 8(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277977918803476
Voegtlin, C., Frisch, C., Walther, A., & Schwab, P. (2019). Theoretical development and
empirical examination of a three-roles model of responsible leadership. Journal of
Business Ethics, 167(3), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04155-2
Voegtlin, C., Scherer, A. G., Stahl, G. K., & Hawn, O. (2022). Grand societal challenges and
responsible innovation. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, 59(1), 1-
28. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12785
Waldman, D. A. (2022). Responsible leadership: New directions in the 2020s and beyond. In N.
M. Pless & T. Maak (Eds.), Responsible leadership (2nd ed., pp.459-472). Rutledge.
Waldman, D. A. & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.07.001
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Stahl, G. K. (2020). Defining the socially responsible leader:
Revisiting issues in responsible leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 27(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819872201
Westover. T. (2018). Educated: A memoir. Random House.
Wood, R. & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173
101

World Health Organization. (2023, February 12). Weekly epidemiological update on COVID-19 -
15 February 2023. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-
update-on-covid-19---15-february-2023
Wuffli, P. (2022). Inclusive leadership for our global era. In N. M. Pless & T. Maak (Eds.),
Responsible leadership (2nd ed., pp. 61-76). Rutledge.
Yildiz, M., Pless, N., Ceyhan, S., Hallak, R. (2023) Responsible leadership and innovation
during COVID-19: Evidence from the Australian tourism and hospitality sector.
Sustainability, 15(4922). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064922
Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social
Philosophy & Policy, 23(1), 102–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052506060043
Zalla, L. C., Martin, C. L., Edwards, J. K., Gartner, D. R., & Noppert, G. A. (2021). A geography
of risk: Structural racism and COVID-19 mortality in the United States. American
Journal of Epidemiology 190(8). https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwab059
102

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Interview:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. As you know, I am a Doctoral
student at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. I am collecting
data for my dissertation research. The purpose of the study is to identify the individual traits,
behaviors, and environments of responsible leaders who have effectively guided organizations
through turbulence with decisions that reflect commitments to stakeholders and society at large. I
will ask you a little bit about your personal background and story, your experience in leading
your organization through a crisis, as well as some questions about your approach to leadership.
The interview is confidential. No one will have access to your individual interview data and no
identifying information will exist in any of the reports. You may decline to answer, wish to
answer, or withdraw from the interview at any time. This interview will take approximately 60 to
90 minutes. With your permission I will make a recording of this Zoom interview and may take
notes. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Table A1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
1. Let’s start with the basics:
Your name, role in your
organization and a little bit
about your organization.
3 Demographics
2. Where did you grow up?
What did your parents
do?
3
Environment
Role models
Education
3. Where did you go to
college?
What were your degree
focus areas?
3
Environment
Education
103

Interview questions Potential probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
4. When you think back to
through the years, who
were the role models who
influenced your leadership?
3
Environment
Role models
5. Describe a situation in your
recent career that either
lead to a crisis or was a
crisis that you had to
navigate.
Was there a point
during that time when
you had to make a
difficult decision
based on what was in
the best interest of
your followers and-or
the greater good?

What happened?
1, 2, 3
Personal
Behavior
Environment
6. During that crisis, what
values helped guide you?
What do you consider
to be your everyday
values as a leader?
1
Personal
Values
7. How did you get people on
the same page and motivate
them?
In non-crises situations
do you typically set a
vision for yourself or
others?

Are you someone who
sets goals for yourself
or others?
2
Behavior
Vision and goals
8. How did you respond to
conflicting information and
priorities?
1, 2, 3
Personal
Behavior
Environment
9. Who did you consult or
involve in your decision-
making process?
2
Behavior
Stakeholders
10. What was your approach to
communicating with
stakeholders both internally
and externally?
Did stakeholders and
their feedback impact
your decisions?
2
Behavior
Stakeholders
11. Throughout the crises, how
would you describe your
confidence levels in
meeting the challenge and
steering your organization?
1
Personal
Self-efficacy
12. How did you maintain
focus throughout the
crises?
1, 2, 3
Personal
Behavior
Environment
104

Interview questions Potential probes
RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
13. Typically, when you see a
challenge in front you, how
do you respond?
How do you approach
dealing with a
challenge?
2
Personal
Self-Efficacy
14. How do you typically
involve stakeholders in
decisions?
When you think about
stakeholders you
need to involve in the
decision, who are
they in terms of
group representation?
2
Behavior
Stakeholders
15. How would you describe
the culture of your
organization?
Does the culture ever
get in the way of
what you are trying to
achieve?

How do you manage
that?
3
Environment
Culture
16. For demographic purposes,
what race do you identify
with?
1, 2, 3 Demographics
17. How many years have you
held leadership roles?
1, 2, 3 Demographics
18. What gender do you
identify with?
1, 2, 3 Demographics
19. Is there anything I didn’t
ask that you would like to
discuss?
1, 2, 3
Personal
Behavior
Environment

Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you for participating today. If you think of anything after our interview, please reach out
to me. I very much appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today!

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of training on leader's ability to effectively lead during a crisis

PDF

Managing competing stakeholder demands: global leaders’ decision-making amid social backlash

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

Chameleons and kungas: the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members in their transitions to academic service

PDF

Understanding conditions for executive coaching success from the leader's point of view

PDF

Investigating the personal and organizational factors influencing the departure of female physicians from healthcare leadership roles

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Success factors for global virtual team leaders: a qualitative study of leaders of global virtual teams in a global professional service firm employing grounded theory

PDF

Secrets from the C-suite: women leaders on the bridging gap

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

Learning environment impact on women undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Beyond the game: optimizing stakeholder value in the evolving landscape of the Football Bowl Subdivision

PDF

Not a sign of weakness: civil discourse in an urban classical charter school

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization

Asset Metadata

Creator Hume Graswich, Elizabeth Anne (author)

Core Title Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 09/18/2023

Defense Date 08/28/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Communication,Crisis,OAI-PMH Harvest,responsible leadership,social cognitive theory,stakeholder engagement

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique Claire (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Pritchard, Marc (committee member)

Creator Email egraswich@gmail.com,graswich@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113378556

Unique identifier UC113378556

Identifier etd-HumeGraswi-12392.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HumeGraswi-12392

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Hume Graswich, Elizabeth Anne

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230920-usctheses-batch-1099 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu