Implementing A Dynamic Leadership Program A Moral Construct For Adding Cultural Value

1. Implementing A Dynamic 1
Running head: IMPLEMENTING A DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
Implementing a Dynamic Leadership Program: A Moral Construct
for Adding Cultural Value
B. Tim Lowder

2. Implementing A Dynamic 2
Abstract
The dynamic leader must have a basic understanding of their organization’s affirmative
moral obligation and operate from a humanistic paradigmatic perspective. Every organization
has a positive moral obligation to do “good” for its stakeholders and not harm them in any way.
Based upon this premise, it can be argued that the corporation has a moral obligation to do
“good” for its employees who are non-owner stakeholder. Hence, the dynamic leader must place
significant emphasis on moral and ethical factors in order to enhance cultural values. The
cultural value creation has the potential to produce positive outcomes for all organizational
stakeholders including employees, shareholders, suppliers, customers, communities, and governments.
This paper will present a concise model for implementing a paradigm shifting model that focuses
on enhancing and developing cultural values.

3. Implementing A Dynamic 3
Implementing a Dynamic Leadership Program: A Moral Construct
for Adding Cultural Value
The dynamic leader must have a basic understanding of their organization’s affirmative
moral obligation and operate from a humanistic paradigmatic perspective (Covey, 1991; Manz &
Sims, 1990; March, 1996; Tichy & McGill, 2003; Trevino, 1986). Every organization has a
positive moral obligation to do “good” for its stakeholders and not harm them in any way
(Freeman, 1994). Based upon this premise, it can be argued that the corporation has a moral
obligation to do “good” for its employees who are non-owner stakeholders (Greenwood, 2002).
Hence, the dynamic leader must place significant emphasis on moral and ethical factors in order
to enhance cultural values.(Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Connolly & Myers, 2003;
Covey, 1991; Freeman, 1994; Greenwood, 2002; Manz & Sims, 1990). The cultural value
creation has the potential to produce positive outcomes for all organizational stakeholders
including employees, shareholders, suppliers, customers, communities, and governments. This paper
will present a concise model for implementing a paradigm shifting model that focuses on
enhancing and developing cultural values.
Humanistic Leadership Paradigm
The dynamic leader’s humanistic decision making process must be aligned with a Kantian
Capitalism perspective in which no individual, including employees of a company, should be used as a
means to an end (Greenfield, 2004; Kant, 1996; Lea, 2004; McCormick, 2006; Smith, 2004). Rawles
explains that “individuals are a self-originating source of valid claims” and definitely matter from a moral
and ethical perspective (Rawls, 1972) (p. 83). In other words, neither the dynamic leaders nor their
organizations have a right to regard people as a means to an ends without their full and free consent
(Chakraborty et al., 2004; Covey, 1991; Greenwood, 2002; Manz & Sims, 1990; Organization &
management theory, 2005; Salopek, 2004). An organization must be managed for the benefit of all

4. Implementing A Dynamic 4
stakeholders including employees and consequently, all stakeholders have a legitimate right to participate
in organizational decision making that has an impact on their well being (Chakraborty et al., 2004;
Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Kaler, 2003; Lea, 2004; Stainer, 2004; Vaghefi & Huellmantel, 1998)
Decision-making Alignment
The issue that must be addressed involves management’s role in developing dynamic leadership
model is a willingness to create a shift in the current decision-making paradigm. Most corporate leaders
in the United States either completely fail to recognize employee’s as organizational stakeholders and/or
refuse to incorporate its premises into the decision-making process (Bowen, 2002; Chakraborty et al.,
2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Marques, 2005; Mohamed, Wisnieski, Askar, & Syed,
2004; Smith, 2004; Stainer, 2004; Trevino, 1986; Whitmore, 2004). This lack of employee significance
is legitimate and must be addressed before a corporate paradigm shift can successfully take place. For
this reason, the dynamic leader must focus on realigning the organizational paradigms to acknowledge the
advantages of heightened employee participation and involvement in organizational decision making.
Cultural Alignment
In order for a paradigm shift to happen, leaders must begin to understand how each
employee’s cultural perception impacts their performance and productivity. Only then will
leaders be able to develop and implement strategies that generate the characteristics of dynamic
leadership. This cultural shift can only happen by acknowledging the importance of stakeholder
ethics and allowing employees to actively participate in the decision making process. To
accomplish this task, dynamic leaders must be willing to adopt a broader definition of what their
organization’s existence represents. Dynamic leaders understand that the cultural paradigm shift
must encompass all aspects of the organization as though it is a living, breathing, organic entity
which is often called culture (Argyris, 1976; W. G. Bennis, 2004; Bertalanffy, 1972; Black,
2002; van Dyck, Frese, Baer, & Sonnentag, 2005; Watters, 2006; Weick, 1987; Whitmore,

5. Implementing A Dynamic 5
2004). Consequently, dynamic leaders must address questions that include what their
organizations do, how it functions, why it exists, and how all the major stakeholders are
impacted by its actions? By answering these questions truthfully dynamic leaders begin to
discover the significance of organizational culture and how to use organizational culture to instill
positive values about the corporate mission or vision into its workforce. It is these positive
values and perceptions that positively impact employee attitudes and performance (Chalofsky,
2003; Marques, 2005; Mohamed et al., 2004; Salopek, 2004; Whitmore, 2004).
The organization’s dynamic leaders impact the organizational culture through their
actions, decision making, and attitudes which in turn, positively enhances employee’s
perceptions and values causing them to grow and thrive (Argyris, 1976; W. Bennis, 2004a,
2004b, 2006a, 2006b; Covey, 1991; B. C. Crosby, 1999; P. B. Crosby, 1996; Manz & Sims,
1990). What this means is that dynamic leadership must integrate the fruits of cultural
development into the organization’s workforce include virtuous behavior and characteristics like
trust, honesty, caring, ethics, honor, and meaning (Ahmed & Machold, 2004; Chakraborty et al.,
2004; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Lea, 2004; Tauber, 2005; Whetstone, 2003) . As dynamic leaders
“walk the talk” of this humanistic virtue-driven program, each employee’s commitment and
focus on these same virtues is heightened the positive outcomes including greater job
satisfaction, better attendance rates, higher productivity levels, and better morale will begin to
flourish (Beck, 2006; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Covey, 1991; Garcia-Zamor,
2003; Greenfield, 2004; Hamel, 2006; LaRue, 2006; Marques, 2005; Organization &
management theory, 2005; Whitmore, 2004).

6. Implementing A Dynamic 6
Leadership Alignment
The key success factor to implementing a construct of stakeholder ethics into the
organizational culture is to attain a consensus of all management. The dynamic leader’s efforts
must consistently bolster the organization’s ethical and principle-oriented values throughout the
company (Beck, 2006; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Chalofsky, 2003; Covey, 1991; Garcia-Zamor,
2003; Greenfield, 2004; Hamel, 2006; LaRue, 2006; Manz & Sims, 1990; Marques, 2005;
Morrison, Rha, & Helfman, 2003; Organization & management theory, 2005). These efforts
must be based upon leader’s positive actions which include incorporating virtues, ethics, values,
and principles into the corporate vision, strategies, and standard operating procedures (Ahmed &
Machold, 2004; Tauber, 2005; Whetstone, 2003). In other words, management must “walk the
talk” and demonstrate their commitment to heightened employee involvement and participation
in their day-to-day activities and instill these values into the employee’s sphere of influence (W.
Bennis, 2004a, 2006a; W. G. Bennis, 2006; Covey, 1991; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Manz & Sims,
1990; Marques, 2005; Spangenberg & Theron, 2005; Whetstone, 2003).
Stakeholder Ethics Model
The stakeholder ethics model to be used in the construct is very straight forward and provides an
excellent framework for dynamic leaders to implement into organization’s culture. This model is called
the “Six Pillars of Character” and has been prepared by the Josephson Institute of Ethics ("The six pillars
of character," 2005). The ethical foundation of “The Six Pillars of Character” is firmly grounded in
Kantian and virtue ethical theory and centers on individual duties and character virtues as a core
foundation (Chakraborty et al., 2004; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Kaler, 2003; Stewart, 2002; Verschoor, 2004;
Whitmore, 2004). These character virtues include trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness,
caring, and citizenship ("The six pillars of character," 2005).

7. Implementing A Dynamic 7
The first pillar trustworthiness is described as the most complicated trait of the six pillars.
Trustworthiness involves respect, honesty, truthfulness, sincerity, candor, good conduct. integrity,
reliability, and loyalty ("The six pillars of character," 2005). The second pillar is respect and entails
character traits including civility, courtesy, decency, dignity, autonomy, tolerance, and acceptance ("The
six pillars of character," 2005). The third pillar is responsibility and involves accountability, diligence,
perseverance, continuous improvement, and self-restraint ("The six pillars of character," 2005). The
fourth pillar is fairness and includes open and impartial processes, impartiality of judgments, and equity
("The six pillars of character," 2005). The fifth pillar is caring and involves humanity, love, and kindness
("The six pillars of character," 2005). The sixth and last pillar is citizenship and involves knowing and
obeying the law, volunteering for civic duties, and returning goodwill to the community ("The six pillars
of character," 2005).
These pillars of character provide an excellent framework for dynamic leaders to use for cultural
development. All decisions must be filtered through this framework to ensure that it is based upon sound
ethical premises. Additionally, this framework for ethical decision making will enhance the level of each
individual employee’s perceptions, participation, and commitment to the organization’s mission and
values.
Implementation
How do dynamic leaders implement stakeholder ethics within the culture of a spiritual workplace
environment? The answer to this question lies in cultural shift from old paradigms to new ways of
thinking about organizational culture. The alignment process toward implementing a cultural shift
involves a two step program that is originally implemented by the organization’s leadership.
The first step in this alignment is the development of a viable corporate value statement that
exemplifies both the importance and significance of all organizational stakeholders. This value statement
must address the organization’s values and desired outcomes as they specifically relate to employees,
shareholders, suppliers, customers, communities, and governments (Beauchamp & Bowie, 2004; W.
Bennis, 2004a; Bennis, 2005a, 2005b; W. Bennis, 2006a, 2006b; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Covey, 1991;

8. Implementing A Dynamic 8
Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Kaler, 2003; Lea, 2004; Manz & Sims, 1990; Stainer, 2004; Stewart, 2002;
Verschoor, 2004; Whitmore, 2004). The key to successful implementation of the value statement is
getting employee stakeholders involved early in the process to demonstrate their value (Freeman, 1994;
Greenwood, 2002). Employee participation is absolutely essential to the program’s success (Chakraborty
et al., 2004; Marques, 2005; Mohamed et al., 2004). Moreover, this first step in the implementation
process has very important overtones because it represents a new comprehensive synergy between
employees, management, and most importantly, the organizations reason for existence. This process
allows all organizational stakeholders to determine that the program is started on a cooperative basis and
each person has their chance to impact its formation. Of greater importance is the fact that the first step
encompasses all stakeholders’ participation and represents the birth of the organization’s spirituality.
Step two begins when the employee teams are assigned the responsibility for developing
platforms that address the organization’s statement of virtues, ethics, and principles by which the
organization will conduct business. Interwoven within the meaning and context of these platforms is the
organization’s value statement that was previously established in step one. The corporate value statement
that was established in step one guides the corporate team members toward developing platforms that aid
in the day-to-day operations and decision-making processes.
Summary
Leadership must understand that this is a perpetual program that entails a long-term commitment
to its continued and consistent follow through. The program is designed to heighten and enhance cultural
development by increasing each employee’s level of participation and involvement through participation
and input into daily decision making. The wonderful news is that most organizations already use
organizational teams that perform various functions. These existing teams can easily be adapted to the
new tasks. In summary, the key to success of the dynamic leadership program is a solid, long-term
management commitment to cultural enhancement and development through employee involvement and
participation.

9. Implementing A Dynamic 9

10. [First Authors Last Name] Page 10
References
Ahmed, P. K., & Machold, S. (2004). The Quality and Ethics Connection: Toward Virtuous
Organizations
The Quality and Ethics Connection: Toward Virtuous Organizations. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 15(4), 527-545.
Argyris, C. (1976). Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo. Organizational
Dynamics, 4(3), 29-43.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (2004). Ethical Theory and Business (Seventh ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Beck, N. (2006). Rationality and institutionalized expectations: The development of an
organizational set of rules. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 58(3), 279-300.
Bennis, W. (2004a). Courageous Leaders. Executive Excellence, 21(10), 17-17.
Bennis, W. (2004b). Leadership Paradox. CIO Insight(44), 35-36.
Bennis, W. (2005a). Creativity for the Long Haul. CIO Insight(54), 31-32.
Bennis, W. (2005b). Seven Stages of Leadership. Leadership Excellence, 22(2), 3-4.
Bennis, W. (2006a). Authentic Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 23(8), 3-4.
Bennis, W. (2006b). Why Lead? Leadership Excellence, 23(10), 4-5.
Bennis, W. G. (2004). The Seven Ages of the Leader. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 46-53.
Bennis, W. G. (2006). Leading for the Long Run. Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 23-24.
Bertalanffy, L. v. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 15(4), 407.
Black, J. (2002). The cultural key to net gains. Business Week Online, N.PAG.

11. [First Authors Last Name] Page 11
Bowen, S. A. (2002). Elite executives in issues management: The role of ethical paradigms in
decision making. Journal of Public Affairs (Wiley), 2(4), 270.
Chakraborty, S. K., Kurien, V., Singh, J., Athreya, M., Maira, A., Aga, A., et al. (2004).
Management paradigms beyond profit maximization. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision
Makers, 29(3), 97-117.
Chalofsky, N. (2003). Meaningful work. T+D, 57(12), 52-58.
Connolly, K. M., & Myers, J. E. (2003). Wellness and mattering: The role of holistic factors in
job satisfaction. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40(4), 152-160.
Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Summit Books.
Crosby, B. C. (1999). Leadership for global citizenship : building transnational community.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Crosby, P. B. (1996). The absolutes of leadership. Johannesburg ; San Diego: Pfeiffer &
Company.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-
421.
Garcia-Zamor, J.-C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public
Administration Review, 63(3), 355-363.
Greenfield, W. M. (2004). Attention to people and principles is key to corporate governance and
ethics. Employment Relations Today, 30(4), 1.
Greenwood, M. R. (2002). Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of
Business Ethics, 36(3), 261.
Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 84(2), 72-84.

12. [First Authors Last Name] Page 12
Kaler, J. (2003). Differentiating stakeholder theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 71.
Kant, I. (1996). The metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
LaRue, B. (2006). Developing Action Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 23(10), 9-9.
Lea, D. (2004). The imperfect nature of corporate responsibilities to stakeholders. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 201.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1990). Dynamic leadership. New York: Berkley.
March, J. G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(2), 278-287.
Marques, J. (2005). Yearning for a more spiritual workplace. Journal of American Academy of
Business, Cambridge, 7(1), 149-153.
McCormick, M. (2006). The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804),
Metaphysics. Retrieved June 17, 2006, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm#H8
Mohamed, A. A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, M., & Syed, I. (2004). Towards a theory of spirituality in
the workplace. Competitiveness Review, 14(1/2), 102-107.
Morrison, J. L., Rha, J., & Helfman, A. (2003). Learning Awareness, Student Engagement, and
Change: A Transformation in Leadership Development. Journal of Education for
Business, 79(1), 11-17.
Organization & management theory. (2005). Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Proceedings.
Rawls, J. (1972). ATheory of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Salopek, J. J. (2004). Engaging mind, body, and spirit at work. T+D, 58(11), 17-19.

13. [First Authors Last Name] Page 13
The six pillars of character. (2005). Resources: Making Ethical Decisions Retrieved April 29,
2006, 2006, from http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-intro+toc.htm
Smith, J. D. (2004). A précis of a communicative theory of the firm. Business Ethics, 13(4), 317.
Spangenberg, H., & Theron, C. C. (2005). Promoting ethical follower behaviour through
leadership of ethics: The development of the ethical leadership inventory (ELI). South
African Journal of Business Management, 36(2), 1-18.
Stainer, L. (2004). Ethical dimensions of management decision-making. Strategic Change, 13(6),
333.
Stewart, W. H. (2002). How work gains meaning in contractual time: A narrative model for
reconstructing the work ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 65.
Tauber, A. I. (2005). Thoreau's living ethics: Walden and the pursuit of virtue. Environmental
Ethics, 27(4), 441-444.
Tichy, N. M., & McGill, A. R. (2003). The ethical challenge: How to lead with unyielding
integrity (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist
model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601.
Vaghefi, M. R., & Huellmantel, A. B. (1998). Strategic leadership at General Electric. Long
Range Planning, 31(2), 280.
van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational Error Management
Culture and Its Impact on Performance: A Two-Study Replication. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1228-1240.
Verschoor, C. C. (2004). Integrity is a strategy for performance. Strategic Finance, 86(1), 15.
Watters, K. (2006). Thinking about leadership

14. [First Authors Last Name] Page 14
Thinking about leadership. Adults Learning, 18(3), 18-19.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California
Management Review, 29(2), 112.
Whetstone, J. T. (2003). The Language of Managerial Excellence: Virtues as Understood and
Applied. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 343.
Whitmore, J. (2004). Something really has to change: Change management as an imperative
rather than a topic. Journal of Change Management, 4(1), 5-14.