The Academy of Management Perspectives

2014, Vol. 28, No. 2, 164178.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0047

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY: THE ROLE OF LEADERS IN CREATING,
IMPLEMENTING, SUSTAINING, OR AVOIDING SOCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE FIRM BEHAVIORS
LISA JONES CHRISTENSEN
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ALISON MACKEY
California Polytechnic State University
DAVID WHETTEN
Brigham Young University
This article investigates microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility by focusing on how leaders influence both activities. An
organizing framework, drawn from the leadership literature, is utilized to combine
scholarship on individual traits, behaviors, and shared leadership as antecedents to
corporate social responsibility and corporate social irresponsibility activities. Resulting combinations highlight the multidimensional nature of corporate social responsibility and the benefits of focusing on emerging work on servant leadership. Merging the
corporate social responsibility and leadership literatures demonstrates how each can
strengthen the other and illustrates new types of individual-level questions to explore
when drawing on such connections. Specifically, corporate social responsibility provides context and outcomes (dependent variables) to leadership scholars; the leadership literature offers process models and explanatory mechanisms to corporate social
responsibility.

Concerns about corporate issues such as firm diversity, treatment of workers, environmental pollution, and financial transparency (among others) increasingly interest stakeholders inside and outside
of the management community (Devinney, 2009;
Margolis & Walsh, 2003). These types of organizational concerns often fall under the label of sustainability or corporate social responsibility (CSR)
(Jones Christensen, Peirce, Hoffman, & Hartman,
2007), hereafter CSR.1 CSR reporting and the adop-

tion of international standards for CSR certification

(e.g., ISO 26000) is on the rise across organizations.2 Further, with consistent business press on
the topic (Franklin, 2008; Karnani, 2010) and legislative efforts to create businesses with principals
legally accountable to societal actors besides shareholders3 (Gilbert, Houlahan, & Kassoy, 2013), it is
clear that CSR represents a growing organizational
phenomenon with implications for practitioners,
scholars, and society at large.
Despite its prominence, CSR is an organizational
phenomenon with many unanswered questions.
Decades of research on the topic have focused primarily on whether a positive linkage exists be-

1
Some research indicates that CSR and sustainability
share similarities; some organizations treat them interchangeably (Jones Christensen et al., 2007). Herein, while
we consider CSR as a set of behaviors separate from but
related to sustainability, we use the term CSR for simplicity and consistency with prior work.

2
3

www.iso2013.com.
www.benefitcorp.net.

164
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

2014

Jones Christensen, Mackey, and Whetten

tween CSR and corporate financial performance

(CFP). Results from numerous empirical studies
examining this linkage, along with several comprehensive meta-analyses on the topic, combine to
suggest (at best) a small, positive link (Margolis,
Elfenbein, & Walsh, 2009; Margolis & Walsh, 2003;
Orlitzky, Frank, & Rynes, 2003). Without a compelling business case for CSR activity, critical questions remain regarding the microfoundations of
CSR, as existing organizational and economicsbased theories do not readily explain why firms
continue to engage in these CSR activities.
Not surprisingly, scholars sound the call for a
new focus on the antecedents and microfoundations of CSR (e.g., Margolis et al., 2009; Margolis &
Walsh, 2003; McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006).
While these calls pervade the current literature,
they remain mostly unheeded (for a recent exception, see the 2013 special issue titled Extending
CSR Research to the Human Resources and Organizational Behavior Domains in Personnel Psychology). As more than an academic exercise, practitioners interested in understanding, promoting, or
defeating CSR activitiesas well as managers pressured to engage in CSRmay also need information on antecedents to CSR. Practitioners may need
to know whether and how such activities affect
organizational outcomes related to society and the
environment.
Accordingly, we respond to these needs by turning to organizational leadership scholarship to analyze what it reveals about corporate social responsibility (and about its antithesis, corporate social
irresponsibility, or CSiR). We take the perspective
that while most conceptualizations of CSR refer to
corporate actions, it is the individuals within firms
who actually create, implement, sustain, or avoid
such policies and actions. Thus, a search for antecedents to socially responsible actions naturally
involves investigating CSR from the individual
level of analysis. Unfortunately, research at the individual level has, by comparison to the organizational and institutional levels, been underexamined in the CSR literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012;
Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel, in press;
Siegel, 2009). This gap further underscores the
value in integrating these two literatures.
Herein, we demonstrate that merging the CSR
and leadership literatures informs and benefits
both literatures and provides a clear indication of
where both can evolve. Specifically, the leadership
literature provides an organizing framework that
enables us to synthesize work from very divergent

165

fields toward understanding linkages between

leaders and CSR. Since CSR scholars typically
work largely in parallel to leadership scholars, the
papers from both disciplines have rarely been combined in scholarly conversation. By combining
them here, we present more understanding on antecedents to CSR than is found in scholarship from
either tradition alone.
The paper unfolds as follows: First, we use a
leadership lens to evaluate work on CSR and CSiR;
next we highlight both CSR definitional issues and
new forms of leadership as holding potential to
move both fields forward. We close with a discussion of implications and future research directions.
LEADERSHIP AND CSR: MULTIPLE
LITERATURES UNDERSCORE THE ROLE
OF LEADERS
In its simplest form, leadership is a tripoda leader
or leaders, followers, and a common goal they want
to achieve. (Bennis, 2007, p. 3)

The study of leadership is fundamental to the

study of human behavior and predates the study of
organizations and business. Historically, the dominant scholarly tradition (and typical lay practice)
attributes credit to formal leaders for creating or
endorsing competitive strategies and ultimately impacting organizations.4 The work on leader impact
(at both the team and organizational levels) largely
falls into three categories: theories about the individual as leader (including his or her traits, personality, skills, abilities, individual differences, and
charisma), theories about the processes at play (including the context of the interactions between
leaders and followers, observed in leader behaviors), and, more recently, theories about shared or
distributed leadership (Northouse, 2013). These
categories serve as the organizing framework for
research across multiple disciplines on how leaders influence what socially responsible (irresponsible) behaviors take place within organizations. (See
Table 1 for a summary listing of selected studies
linking leaders and CSR.) We purposefully organize our descriptions using categories from the
leadership literature (1) to call attention to what
leadership scholarship reveals on this topic; (2) to

While we recognize and address other forms of leadership in this paper, unless otherwise noted we refer to
formal hierarchical positions of authority when we use
the term leader.

Corporate greening, business

ethics, morality, issue selling,
impression management
Advertising campaigns, social
dimensions, noneconomic
performancea
Corporate social performance,
institutional and resource
dependence, issues
management, managerial
discretiona
Corporate social responsibility,
CEO characteristics, corporate
social performance, CSR
ranking, sustainable
development, CSR performance
CEO, corporate social
performance, corporate social
responsibility, KLD, leadership,
upper echelon theory
Management commitment to
ethics, corporate social
performance, extrinsic drivers,
intrinsic driversa
Leadership centrality, shared
leadership, self-leadership,
leadership, corporate social
responsibility
Shared leadership, empowering
leadership, corruption,
responsibility disposition

Crane (2000)

Drumwright (1994)

Pearce, Manz, & Sims (2008)

Pearce & Manz (2011)

Muller & Kolk (2010)

Manner (2010)

Huang (2013)

Greening & Gray (1994)

Corporate responsibility,
managerial responsea

CEO values, stakeholder salience,

corporate financial
performance, corporate social
performance, normative
stakeholder theorya
Corporate social responsibility,
institutional drivers, leadership

Key terminology

Buehler & Shetty (1976)

Angus-Leppan, Metcalf, &

Benn (2010)

Agle, Mitchell, &

Sonnenfeld (1999)

Author(s)

Shared leadership

Shared leadership

Strategic choice theory

Stakeholder theory, upper

echelons

Strategic choice, stakeholder

theory, upper echelons

Resource dependence, strategic

choice, managerial discretion

Environmental management (issue

selling, policy championing,
sensemaking activities,
impression management)
Organization identification

Corporate social responsibility

Sensemaking

Resource dependence, stakeholder

theory, agency theory

Theoretical perspective

Explanatory variables

CEO responsibility disposition

(moderated by shared
leadership) ()

Centralized leadership (), self/

shared leadership ()

Manager commitment to ethics ()

CEO characteristics (education,

experience, gender, compensation)

CEO demographic characteristics ()

Top management commitment to

CSR

Presence of top management

internal champions to CSR

CSR policy champions

Various leadership styles (authentic/

emergent, autocratic,
transformational)
Supervisor commitment to CSR

CEO values

TABLE 1
Selected Studies of LeadershipCSR Link

Executive corruption

CSIR (see comments)

Environmental performance,
community relations, labor
relations

CSP

Consistency in CSR ratings

across parties

Success of advertising
campaigns with social
dimensions
Issues management structural
development

Social actions (urban,

consumer, environmental
affairs)
Symbolic action, impression
management, amoralization of
corporate greening

CSR (both explicit and implicit)

Stakeholder salience, CSP

Outcome variables

Managerial choice, managements

ethical commitment, control
orientationa
Corporate ethics programs, top
management teams, socially
responsible process, social
performancea

Supervisory support behaviors,

employee environmental
initiativesa
Environmentally specific
transformational leadership,
green leadership,
environmental sustainability,
employee pro-environmental
behavior
Corporate environmental strategy,
strategic issue interpretation
literaturea
Stakeholder values, economic
values, firm performance,
CEOs, visionary leadershipa
Transformational leadership
theory, CEOs, corporate social
responsibility, CEO intellectual
stimulation, charismatic
leadership, strategic CSRa
Culture, leadership, values,
corporate social responsibility

Key terminology

Social learning, organizational

culture

Managerial choice theory, upper

echelons

Transformational, neo-charismatic
leadership

Transformational, neo-charismatic
leadership

Transformational, neo-charismatic
leadership

Strategic issue interpretation

Transformational, neo-charismatic
leadership

Creativity, empowerment,
organizational learning

Theoretical perspective

These terms are our own categorization, not the keywords provided by the authors.

Weaver, Trevio, & Cochran

(1999b)

Waldman, Sully de Luque,

Washburn, & House
(2006)
Weaver, Trevio, & Cochran
(1999a)

Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan

(2006)

Sully de Luque, Washburn,

Waldman, & House (2008)

Sharma (2000)

Robertson & Barling (2012)

Ramus & Steger (2000)

Author(s)

TABLE 1
(Continued)

Management commitment to
CSR ()

Top management commitment to

ethics ()

CEO visionary leadership and

integrity

CEO charismatic leadership and

intellectual stimulation

CEO emphasis on stakeholder values

Managerial interpretations of
environmental issues

Environmentally specific
transformational leadership (),
leaders environmental
behaviors ()

Supervisor commitment/
encouragement to CSR ()

Explanatory variables

Ethics policy communication

practices, ethics-oriented
performance appraisals

Scope of ethics programs, mode

of control of ethics program

CEO CSR values

Strategic CSR, social CSR

Extra effort from followers, firm

performance

Environmental strategy

Employees harmonious
environmental passion,
employees environmental
behaviors

Employee environmental
initiatives

Outcome variables

168

The Academy of Management Perspectives

highlight cases where other scholarship on CSR

complements leadership theories; and (3) to discuss where leadership theories offer new insights
on CSR. Then we discuss what trait, behavior, and
shared leadership theories (or work that reflects a
trait, behavior, or shared leadership focus) suggest
about individual-level influences on CSR.

The Individual as Leader: Trait Theories

and CSR
Some work in CSR already relates individual differences to CSR outcomes. This work explicitly or
implicitly embodies the perspective that the search
for antecedents to CSR begins with understanding
top leader or manager personal traits, values, and
idiosyncratic characteristics. Embedded in these
types of investigations is the assumption that leaders mold firm strategic practices, and that leader
choices for the firm reflect leader personality and
values. Most of the empirical work in this tradition
draws on strategic management theories (e.g., strategic choice theory, upper echelons, stakeholder
theory) (e.g., Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999;
Huang, 2013; Manner, 2010) rather than explicit
leadership theories to link leaders to CSR.
In one of the earliest studies to find such a linkage, Agle and colleagues (1999) used resource dependence theory, stakeholder theory, and agency
theory to posit that CEOs imprint firms with their
own values, affecting decision processes within the
firm that determine the degree to which managers
give priority to competing stakeholder claims ultimately impacting the social performance of the
firm. In additional to values, CEO demographics
(e.g., Huang, 2013) and characteristics such as compensation, educational background, and job experience (Manner, 2010) are associated with CSR activity within firms. There is even some evidence to
suggest that the early life experiences of firm
founders (e.g., child of Christian missionaries,
other life events that gave the leader a social
agenda) may predispose these individuals to imprint their firms with an identity toward CSR
(Whetten & Mackey, 2011). Interestingly, the effect
of these socially conscious founders has lasted
many decades beyond their departure from the
firms they founded. These imprinted firms have
consistently significantly higher CSR scores today
as measured by third-party rating firms than do
organizations that adopted their first CSR practices
after the time of the founder, suggesting that lead-

May

ership effects on CSR can be long-lasting and can

occur over time (Whetten & Mackey, 2011).
While these works represent perspectives from
multiple theoretical disciplines outside of the
mainstream leadership literature, they share the
unifying theme that characteristics of the individual leader predict CSR. Fully complementary to
this type of research is the tradition in leadership
focused on the leader as an individual, in particular
on his or her traits, personality, skills, abilities, and
individual differences. These formal trait theories
reflect the view that leaders are not like other people (i.e., they are born, not made) and that leader
traits such as drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, and task knowledge fundamentally differentiate leaders from nonleaders
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Mann, 1959; Stogdill,
1948; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004).
Recent work in trait theory suggests new avenues
for CSR scholars investigating links between individual differences and CSR. For example, personality researchers show that leaders with bright
side traits (e.g., Big Five traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, etc.) both
positively and negatively affect organizational behaviors. Specifically, conscientious leaders tend to
demonstrate higher levels of integrity (which could
lead to more firm-level CSR), but because these
leaders may be mindful of the preferences of others,
they are unlikely to make strategic changes against
status quo/consensus opinion (which could lead to
conciliatory behaviors equated with less firmlevel CSR).
Likewise, leaders with so-called dark side
traits (e.g., narcissism, hubris, dominance, etc.),
while typically affecting firm behaviors in a negative manner, may in some instances generate positive benefits for organizations (Judge, Piccolo, &
Kosalka, 2009). Narcissistic leaders, for example,
who encourage visibly bold, aggressive actions that
highlight their vision and leadership within the
firm will often actually improve the performance of
the firm (e.g., Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Nuanced findings such as these illustrate the multidimensional nature of personality traits and suggest
that CSR scholars continue to investigate leaderpersonalityrelated connections to CSR. This work
also implies that CSR activities provide a particular
context in which to investigate the impacts of traits
on organizations.
In addition to insights about CSR, trait theories
offer insight into antecedents of corporate social
irresponsibility (CSiR). As noted previously, lead-

2014

Jones Christensen, Mackey, and Whetten

ership scholars study how dark side leader traits

can lead to negative firm outcomes. Such leaders
rarely inspire followers to engage in prosocial behaviors (e.g., ethical, supportive, fair, organizational citizenship behaviors, extra-role and helping
behaviors, volunteer work, etc.) (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011; Judge et al., 2009). Other leadership
work proposes that a leaders responsibility disposition or the extent to which he or she has high
moral standards, feels an obligation to do the
proper thing, is highly concerned about the welfare
of others, and has a high degree of self-judgment or
critical evaluation of his or her own character
(Winter, 1991, as quoted in Pearce, Manz, & Sims,
2008, p. 354)predicts executive corruption when
this disposition is weak (Pearce et al., 2008; Pearce
& Manz, 2011).
Beyond the leadership literature, other research
links characteristics of top management team members to corporate irresponsibility (e.g., Daboub,
Rasheed, Priem, & Gray, 1995; Ormiston & Wong,
2013). For example, in the top management teams
literature, evidence suggests that the greater the
extent of formal management training among top
managers, the greater the potential for corporate
irresponsibility (Daboub et al., 1995). Recent research also finds that CEOs with intrinsic needs to
put forth a moral image are more likely to engage in
moral licensing behavior, as prior responsible behavior can create a sense of having earned moral
credits that permit irresponsible behavior
(Ormiston & Wong, 2013).
Overall, research from multiple traditions suggests that leader personality, training, values, and
other innate individual differences motivate behaviors that explicitly benefit or disregard others. Such
findings imply that firm CSR (and CSiR) depends
on the nature of firm leadersand further that a
leaders inclination to CSR is a function of natural
endowments over training. In contrast, behavioral
theories, discussed in the next section, imply that
CSR is more easily learned, trained, or otherwise
inculcatedand more easily separated from leader
individual differences.
Leader Processes at Work: Behavioral Theories
and CSR
Work relating leader behaviors and social interaction processes to CSR activities maintains that
while leaders mold CSR practices and outcomes,
this happens less because of leader individual differences and more because of specific leader behav-

169

iors. Most of this work draws on macro organizational theories or strategic management theories
(e.g., managerial choice, resource dependence, strategic choice, upper echelons, social learning, organizational culture) rather than behavioral leadership
ones (Muller & Kolk, 2010; Weaver, Trevio, &
Cochran, 1999a). For example, there is some evidence to suggest that supervisory support behaviors (as well as corporate environmental policy)
influence the probability that employees will try to
innovatively solve environmental problems (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Other leader behaviors, such
as managerial commitment to CSR, appear to influence the organizational structures that firms develop to identify, analyze, and respond to the social
and political environment (e.g., formal ethics programs, defined managerial roles and responsibilities, formal functional departments, etc.) (e.g.,
Buehler & Shetty, 1976; Crane, 2000; Drumwright,
1994; Greening & Gray, 1994; Weaver, Trevio, &
Cochran, 1999b).
CSR scholars have recently begun to bridge this
scholarship with the behavioral tradition within
the leadership literature (e.g., Robertson & Barling,
2012; Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006). Specifically, these works draw on transformational leadership, a behavioral theory of leadership, to explain
CSR behavior. This theory suggests that transformational leaders raise followers aspirations and activate higher order values such that followers identify with the leader and his or her mission/vision,
feel better about their work, and work to perform
beyond simple transactions and base expectations
(Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009, p. 428). Such
leadership inspires others to pursue goals and/or
unleashes latent desires already present in colleagues and employees.
Typical behaviors associated with the transformational style include influence by invoking ideals, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1998;
Bass & Riggio, 2006)all of which can influence
causes and behaviors related to social justice, environmental activism, and other socially responsible
outcomes. Not surprisingly, transformational leadership theory provides the foundation for emerging
work on CSR and leadership, particularly for cases
framing CSR along moral or altruistic terms. Specifically, researchers associate transformational
leaders with higher firm propensities to engage in
environmental social responsibility (Waldman et
al., 2006), in part because these leaders influence
the formation of CSR values on the part of followers

170

The Academy of Management Perspectives

(e.g., Waldman, Sully du Luque, Washburn, &

House, 2006) as well as employee workplace behavior (Robertson & Barling, 2012).
Emerging work in this area suggests that transformational leadership indirectly affects others behavior when leaders (1) share values (idealized influence), (2) convince followers they can achieve at
levels previously thought unattainable (inspirational motivation), (3) help employees think in new
and innovative ways (intellectual stimulation), and
(4) establish a relationship through which they can
exert an influence on certain behaviors (individualized consideration) (Robertson & Barling, 2012).
These findings pave the way for more work on
specific ways that such leadership might relate to
different CSR-related activities.
Transformational leadership is just one of several
important perspectives within the behavioral tradition that links leader behaviors to firm-level CSR.
Another such theory, not yet as integrated into
the CSR literature as transformational leadership,
is leadermember exchange (LMX) (Dansereau,
Graen, & Haga, 1975). This theory builds on the
idea that communication frequency, communication patterns, reciprocity norms, value agreement,
role-taking, and certain interaction tactics between
two parties can result in high mutual trust and high
organizational advantage. LMX relates to CSR because it offers another explanatory mechanism for
how and why particular leader behaviors may or
may not lead to similar or reciprocated behaviors
on the part of colleagues or followers. More recent
and somewhat implicit extensions of LMX involve
two additional types of leadership ethical and socially responsible leadership. Both warrant further
inquiry as to the effects of such behaviors on firm
outcomes (Yukl, 2001), and both are described in
sections devoted to future research. Before moving
to those sections, we discuss an emerging leadership phenomenon related to group (versus dyadic)
behaviors.
Beyond Individual Effects: Shared and
Distributed Leadership and CSiR
Shared leadership describes cases where leader
behaviors and influence emerge from any level
within the organization (Pearce & Conger, 2003).
Scholars focused on shared leadership theories
hold that much of leadership scholarship has
failed to recognize that leadership is not merely the
influential act of an individual or individuals but
rather is embedded in a complex interplay of nu-

May

merous interacting forces (Uhl-Bien, Marion, &

McKelvey, 2007, p. 302). Shared leadership (also
referred to as distributed or collective leadership)
reflects an interactive influence process among
individuals in groups for which the objective is to
lead one another to the achievement of group or
organizational goals or both (Pearce & Conger,
2003, p. 1). Such leadership may contribute to a
system of checks and balances in an overall leadership system. Some theoretical work suggests that
centralized leadership, without the checks and balances of shared leadership, is one of the primary
antecedents of corporate irresponsibility (Pearce et
al., 2008; Pearce & Manz, 2011). As such, shared
leadership represents a rich area of focus for CSR
and leadership scholars alike.
Thus far, the organizing framework from the
leadership field has been used to describe findings
relating leadership to CSR (and CSiR) and to discuss opportunities for future research. Specifically,
per Table 1 above, we identified trait-like aspects of
leaders and key elements of the leadership process
(including shared leadership) that act as antecedents to CSR. While much research clearly falls into
one category or the other, some work on leadership
and CSR incorporates aspects of both. In part,
blended categories occur because researchers utilize new methods and domains. For example, some
work incorporates advances in neuroscience to understand leadership (e.g., Waldman et al., 2013;
Waldman, Balthazard, & Peterson, 2011). Waldman
and colleagues (2013) found evidence using realtime quantitative electroencephalogram (qEEG) activity to suggest that leaders are able to engage their
colleagues neurologically in a way that nonleaders
do not. While this research does not describe
features of these emergent leaders (either by traits
or behaviors or both), it does suggest that leader
effects on followers can be measured and assessed more objectively using new techniques
and methodologies.
Despite the obvious value of using new methods
and domains, scholars interested in advancing
knowledge on leadership and CSR must attend to
other issues as well. In combining and categorizing
findings from multiple literatures (summarized in
Table 1, above), we identified two major gaps related to leadership and CSR. One gap relates to the
possibility that CSR takes more forms than currently discussed, tested for, or theorized about
which calls into focus the definition of CSR. The
other gap relates to emerging leadership scholarship, particularly that of servant leadership, and

2014

Jones Christensen, Mackey, and Whetten

how such work incorporates and potentially advances CSR scholarship. In the following section,
we describe how addressing both issues advance
the study of leadership and CSR.

THE WAY FORWARD IN LEADERSHIPCSR

RESEARCH: ADDRESS FORMS OF CSR AND
INVESTIGATE NEW FORMS OF LEADERSHIP
Issues With CSR Definitions
The definition of corporate social responsibility
has been a steadily evolving construct and one
about which consensus has not been achieved (Carroll, 1999, 2008; Committee for Economic Development, 1971; Jones Christensen et al., 2007; Margolis
& Walsh, 2003; Waddock, 2004). Generally speaking, most definitions of CSR involve corporate attention to stakeholders besides shareholders and
contributions to society beyond what is minimally
legally compliant (Freeman, 1984, 1999). Yet definitions differ starkly in terms of what they imply
about motivation for, and financial impacts of, the
CSR investment or expense (in fact, the depiction
of CSR as an investment or expense differs by definition). Specifically, the terms instrumental CSR
and altruistic CSR represent the extremes on the
continuum of CSR definitions. We provide background on these definitions and in doing so demonstrate what the definitions suggest about future
research.
Instrumental versus altruistic CSR. Scholars
who embrace the instrumental view of CSR define
CSR by its costs and impact on firm financial performance. Proponents of the instrumental view argue that CSR constitutes an investment so compatible with profitability that business should
convert social responsibilities into business opportunities; firms should find ways to turn social
problems into economic opportunities (Drucker,
1984, p. 62; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Scholars typically investigate instrumental CSR from a resourcebased view of the firm and pair it with terms such
as profit-maximizing CSR or strategic CSR
(Hart, 1995; McWilliams et al., 2006; McWilliams &
Siegel, 2000, 2001; Russo & Fouts, 1997). Instrumental investigations of CSR focus on how such
actions enhance financial returns in the short or
long term (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Taken to the
logical extreme, proponents term instrumental CSR
as good strategy. Accordingly, some argue that
leaders should pursue CSR-related issues only

171

when such actions simultaneously enhance profitability (Waldman & Siegel, 2008, p. 119).
At the other end of the definitional continuum
lies altruistic CSR.5 Defining CSR as actions on the
part of the firm that appear to advance or acquiesce
in the promotion of some social good, beyond the
immediate interests of the firm and its shareholders
and beyond that which is required by law (Waldman et al., 2006, p. 1703) suggests an altruistic bias
focused on advancing a social goodas opposed to
an instrumental bias focused on immediate firm
financial interests. Some scholars advocating definitions closer to this end of the definitional continuum caution that defining CSR in an instrumental
manner undermines the unique value of CSR as an
area of scholarship. They argue that reducing CSR
to nothing more than another business strategy fails
to focus on a critical contribution of CSR scholarship: It can help explain why firms engage in activities that benefit the interests of employees, suppliers, customers, and society at large even when
those activities reduce the profitability of the firm
(Mackey, Mackey, & Barney, 2007; Windsor, 2001).
To be sure, more nuanced views of CSR exist
than the extremes suggest; mixed motivations also
occur. For example, a CEO may direct a firm to
engage in socially responsible behaviors because he
or she believes it is the right thing to do (some
form of altruistic CSR, driven by values) while at
the same time hoping that positive financial outcomes result for the firm sometime in the future
(some form of instrumental CSR). However, noting
the definitional extremes allows us to illustrate
why we need to study managerial motivations: Investigating the reasons for pursuing (or rejecting) a
CSR opportunity may involve studying intent. Investigating intent, and specifically cases where intent is part of the CSR message sent to stakeholders,
may shed light on situations where managers at
different firms have different motivations but enact
the same CSR behavior. If one such firm has better
results with the same policy than does the other
(and researchers reliably eliminate firm effects and
other explanations), then motivations for CSR (and
how those motivations are communicated) may
matter as much or more than the presence or absence of a policy in terms of advancing knowledge
on implications/consequences of CSR.

5
Altruistic, voluntary, and explicit CSR (e.g., Matten &
Moon, 2008) all represent the logical alternative to the
instrumental logic.

172

The Academy of Management Perspectives

Terms such as instrumental, altruistic, implicit,

and explicit imply variance in motivation, encouraging scholars to further study motivational bases
as potential antecedents to CSR behaviors. It is not
necessary for scholars to resolve the definitional
debates; however, acknowledging which type of CSR
researchers investigate will advance our knowledge
of how different definitions suggest different antecedents (and possibly different outcomes).
Importantly, leadership scholars are no strangers
to the search for antecedents of many kinds. Ideally, micro-focused scholars can utilize validated
measures to explore behaviors attributed to or following from altruistic/moral motives and compare
how such behaviors differ from those following
from instrumental motives. Results could contribute new management theory regarding nonfinancial aspects of CSR. Other research comparing leadership styles of those who engage in instrumental
versus altruistic CSR would enable scholars to understand more about which kind of leadership relates to which kind of CSR. Scholars have the potential to find whether motivations come from
affective and/or altruistic drivers, from more rational and calculative cognitive drivers, or from a
mixture of both, as well as whether each type has
different antecedents. Of course, the issue of definitions also introduces the question of whether the
definitions even matterif outcomes and consequences from each type of CSR do not differ, then
the nomological debate can end. However, only
future multilevel research that combines the microfocus of some leadership scholars and the organizational-level perspective of CSR/strategy scholars
will settle this issue.

New Forms of Leadership: Ethical, Responsible,

and Servant Leadership
The second gap in the research on leadership and
CSR has to do with new forms of leadership. Leadership scholars identify and study new forms of
leadershipamong them ethical, responsible, and
servant leadership. The theoretical mechanisms
underlying these kinds of leadership, while still
emergent and underdeveloped, offer explicit linkages to explain (and encourage) CSR. These linkages are unique among leadership theories in that
they enable a focus on more hedonic and nonfinancial leader effects. As such, these new forms of
leadership may ultimately prove to identify new
and different types of leaders that do a better (or

May

worse) job at creating, implementing, or thwarting

CSR (or CSiR).
Ethical leaders are individuals who encourage
CSR practices (defined in ethical/altruistic versus
instrumental terms) by communicating ethical
standards, encouraging ethical conduct, modeling
ethical behavior, and opposing unethical conduct
(Yukl, 2001, p. 28). Theoretically, these same leaders
might encourage social responsibility by making decisions that consider the needs of different stakeholders, encouraging support of worthy community service activities, encouraging improvements in product
safety, and recommending practices that reduce
harmful effects for the environment (Yukl, 2001,
p. 28).
Somewhat related to ethical leadership is the
concept of responsible leadership, an emergent
leadership model both in the scholarly literature
and in practice (Pless, Maak, & Waldman, 2012). No
single definition or evaluation method of responsible leadership yet exists, in part because responsibility has multiple bases and multiple potential
objects. Some conceptualizations suggest that leaders who embrace responsible leadership do so with
two different orientations: a limited economic one
or an extended stakeholder view (Waldman & Galvin, 2008). This dichotomy echoes the definitional
dichotomy related to CSR, and relates closely to the
instrumental and altruistic divisions.
However, Pless and colleagues (2012) identified
more nuanced distinctions. Importantly, they identified four major orientations that vary by the degree to which leaders feel accountable to others and
by the breadth of the constituent group focus. Of
the four orientations (the more narrow economist
and opportunity seeker ones and the more broad
idealist and integrator) the authors point to
twothe idealist and integrator orientationsas
most representative of the emerging perspectives of
leaders they interviewed. The authors found these
two types to be in line with traditional moral thinking and espoused by leaders suspicious of a governmental or market ability to provide socially optimal outcomes. Stated in this manner, these
definitions ascribe very particular philosophical
positions and motivations to such leaders.
For example, the authors go so far as to say that
the integrator does not run the business primarily to make profits out of an accountability to shareholders/owners, but he or she considers profits to
be an outcome likely to result from running a purposeful and responsible business (Pless et al.,
2012, p. 58). The idealist leadership approach to

2014

Jones Christensen, Mackey, and Whetten

responsible leadership uses business as a means,

not an end, to tackle social problems and serve
stakeholders in need; the authors found that in
their sample, these leaders were driven by strong
ethical intentions, often rooted in spiritual or religious beliefs (p. 59). Importantly, the authors argue that leaders with different orientations engage
differently with society and social responsibilities.
These assertions need to be tested, and no instrument yet exists to test the responsible leadership
orientations, but theory and limited data suggest
that different orientations lead to different approaches to CSRapproaches that range from reactive to proactive with options in between. As such,
CSR activities may be predicted by, and depend on,
the responsibility orientation of leaders.
The responsible leadership perspective validates
and can incorporate the idea that there are different
types of CSR as well as the idea that intentions and
motivations matter in predicting different CSR activities. However, despite the potential for ethical
and socially responsible leadership theories to relate to particular types of CSR, they have not been
fully utilized to this end; as such we call attention
to them to suggest that they might be utilized for
future research in the CSR domain.
Servant leadership describes another behavioral
leadership theory significantly more developed
than ethical or relational leadership. It relates to
both in that all three have significant potential to
advance our understanding of antecedents to CSR,
and all three remain emerging theories to this
point. Of the three, servant leadership may move
theory about CSR forward because its definition
specifically includes concern for others. Thus, the
practices of CSR (all types) may provide the ideal
context for servant leadership theories to mature.
First developed by Greenleaf (1970), the term
servant leadership refers to leadership that combines the motivation to lead with a need to serve
(Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
From the perspective of the follower, servant leaders empower and develop people, show humility,
act authentically, accept people for who they are,
provide direction, act as stewards who work for the
good of the whole (Van Dierendonck, 2011), and
create value for others outside of the firm (Hunter et
al., 2013). In Greenleafs words:
Servant leadership begins with the natural feeling
that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. . . . The
best test, and difficult to administer, is this: do those
served grow as persons? Do they, while being served,

173

become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous,

and more likely themselves to become servants?
And, what is the effect on the least privileged in
society? Will they benefit, or at least not further be
harmed? (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 27; emphasis added)

When viewed through the lens of servant leadership, social responsibility concerns are essentially
baked in to its theory and practice. The italicized
portion above calls attention to the focus on disenfranchised people (and perhaps the environment)
who remain outsiders in our current management
systemsa focus shared by proponents of CSR and
social and environmental sustainability. Therein
lies one feature of servant leadership that makes it
less commonly discussed in fields outside of leadershipand at the same time more likely to add
explanatory power to the search for antecedents
to CSR.
Of all the leadership theories discussed to this
point, servant leadership is the only one in which
CSR is both foundational to the conceptual model
and specified as an expected outcome of the model.
For example, in synthesizing the literature on servant leadership to date, Van Dierendonck (2011)
offered a conceptual model of servant leadership
that includes antecedents and consequences at all
levels. His work suggests that in response to servant
leadership, individuals may feel commitment, empowerment, job satisfaction, and increased engagement at work; teams may experience increased effectiveness; and organizations may display a
stronger focus on sustainability and CSR.
Although servant leadership shares some elements with other forms of leadership, the work of
Van Dierendonck (2011) carefully explains how
servant leadership subsumes and remains different
from transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and socially responsible leadership. While it
has a moral component similar to ethical and authentic leadership, it differs in its focus on all organizational stakeholders (Graham, 1991). Servant
leadership naturally and explicitly demands that
such leaders focus on a wider set of organizational
outcomes than profit alone. Specifically, servant
leadership assumes that leaders have a commitment to the growth of individual employees and to
the survival of the organization, and a responsibility to the community (Reinke, 2004). Whereas the
primary allegiance of transformational leaders
is the organization (Van Dierendonck, 2011,
p. 1235), the primary allegiance of servant leaders
is to those they serve and those who lack access

174

The Academy of Management Perspectives

(the least privileged). In short, servant leaders focus

on followers needs and transformational ones focus on organizational goals. The benefits of servant
leadership include increased job satisfaction of direct reports (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008), a
positive influence on team performance (Hu &
Liden, 2011), and enhanced firm performance as
measured in return on assets (Peterson, Galvin, &
Lang, 2012).
Servant leadership remains distinct from other
forms of leadership, focusing on the betterment of
followers, organizations, and society (the purview
of CSR work). This unique focus suggests that servant leadership holds significant potential to advance CSR research. Findings to date support this
assertion, in part because advantages of servant
leadership include outcomes not mentioned above
yet closely related to CSR. Specifically, servant
leadership relates to citizenship behaviors (Liden,
Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Walumba, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010), increased collaboration and creativity among employees (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008), promotion of
morality-centered self-reflection by leaders (Giampetro-Meyer, Brown, Browne, & Kubasek, 1998),
and follower helping and sales (Hunter et al., 2013).
The fact that many leaders of the Fortune 100 Best
Companies to Work For in America describe servant leadership as a core company value (Kincaid,
2012; Ruschman, 2002) provides supporting evidence for its value to supplement the scholarly
findings. Specifically, leaders from companies as
different as Interface, Starbucks, Vanguard, and
Kohls have all made formal statements endorsing
servant leadership and even attributing financial
success and high CSR ratings to their respective
company actions focused on its principles (Anderson, 2009; Bogle, 2004; Kincaid, 2012; Vandan
Plas, 2007).
Thus servant leadership, and the scholarship and
theorizing that continue to grow around the topic,
offers an opportunity to advance findings about
CSRin large part because the servant leadership
concept already includes explicit theoretical linkages to CSR activities. Scholars already investigate
antecedents (Hunter et al., 2013; Sun, 2013), yet
CSR as an explicit consequence remains theoretically linked but less studied (Van Dierendonck,
2011). The goal in describing servant leadership is
to illustrate its focus on the betterment of internal
and external stakeholders as well as society at large
(and particularly the most vulnerable in society).
Regardless of how differently some scholars and

May

practitioners define CSR, some consensus does exist around the fact that CSR includes consideration
of these constituents.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
To this point, a major contribution of this paper
lies in the identification, description, and categorization of research related to the study of leader
effects on CSR activities. The resulting list (shown
in Table 1) highlights findings from individuallevel research, although it also includes some data
on shared leadership (a team- or group-level phenomenon). The research findings from different
disciplines and theoretical orientations call into
relief two major issues: (1) how scholars need to
integrate the multidimensional nature and definitions of CSR and (2) how the topic of servant leadership, while emerging in the leadership literature,
has direct and distinct linkages to CSR-related actions and as such deserves more attention. The two
issues can actually merge in a mutually supportive
way if and when scholars test whether/which servant leadership activities relate to which type
of CSR.
The second major contribution of this paper relates to such ideas for future research, as each section of the paper offers distinct suggestions for new
scholarship. More specifically, among other things,
we suggest that measuring and understanding
leader motivations for CSR offers a major path forward for both fields. Many of the questions that
remain revolve around whether different motivations relate to various types of CSR; to different
CSR actions; and/or to different responses from
stakeholders such as the beneficiaries, the business
press, and competitors. Further research must first
verify that CSR outcomes/consequences actually
differ by motivation or by CSR definition. One way
to establish these types of results comes from using
improved methods of all types: taking a longer view
with a particular focus on founders, looking at the
social networks of leaders and followers to see how
practices spread based on different network types,
and testing physiological reactions of respondents
in addition to self-report and external ratings. Further, building on the research directions listed
above, leaders must be more explicit about motivations and must be asked to share motivations before
or during the enactment of a CSR activity rather
than post hoc.
While academics continue to expand and explore
these issues, practitioners can act on what scholars

2014

Jones Christensen, Mackey, and Whetten

have already established. More specifically, the established (and growing) list of benefits of servant
leadership suggests that leaders can practice and
employ the dimensions of servant leadership to
great positive effect for individuals, teams, and the
organization. We go one step further to suggest that
graduate management programs encourage the
study of servant leadership and make explicit the
fact that some successful leaders attribute their success to principles of servant leadership. Specifically, leaders can form relationships of trust with
followers, empower them through inclusion in decision making, encourage follower growth and success, behave ethically, balance work with vision,
and create valueand encourage followers to create valuefor others outside the organization.
Such work requires identifying leader intentions,
definitions in use, leader perceived trade-offs, and
leader motivations at different points. Importantly,
doing so requires incorporating little-used methods
and different research subjects as well as considering how leadership effects accrue or decay over
time. Researchers must pay more attention to process models related to enacting CSR (CSiR) and to
failed attempts to achieve CSR or CSR-related actions on the part of others.
While these suggestions vary in terms of difficulty, pursuing them expands the domain of leadership literature, builds empirical data on emerging
leadership theories, and provides data on antecedents to CSR. The results will further demonstrate
the bidirectional benefits of merging the leadership
and CSR literatures.
CONCLUSIONS
The CSR domain lacks a unified body of individual-level scholarship on antecedents; the leadership literature provides a rich set of explanatory
mechanisms for individual leader effects. As such,
corporate social responsibility offers a specific and
focused context within which to explore leader
impacts. Merging the leadership literatures and the
work to date on CSR has several benefits. First, the
combination revealed an organizational framework
based on leadership scholarship that invites inclusion of research from outside the leadership tradition. Accordingly, this paper combines research
that would otherwise remain in separate disciplines. Looking to this range of scholarship invites
CSR researchers to use validated measures and
well-tested individual-level constructs from many
disciplines. Equally important, by highlighting the

175

relationship between emerging leadership theories

(such as shared leadership) and CSR activities, this
paper illustrates scholarship that focuses on more
than financial outcomes. Other organizational
scholars have already suggested that CSR actions
happen and continue to happen even when increased firm profitability will not ensue; servant
leadership offers a theoretical mechanism to explain and predict this. Only by combining emerging leadership scholarship with important new topics in CSR/strategy fields can scholars move both
fields forward.
We found that specific leader characteristics,
traits, values, and attitudes positively relate to
whether colleagues enact CSR behaviors, and we
identified emerging work that outlines that characteristics of some groups and teams can mitigate
negative or anti-CSR pressures and tendencies on
the part of leaders. By continuing to work together
on very focused questions, scholars from the CSR
and leadership domains have rich opportunities for
theoretical advancement of both fields, particularly
to jointly create work that explores origins and
outcomes of noninstrumental CSR.
REFERENCES
*Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999).
Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 507525.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and
dont know about corporate social responsibility.
Journal of Management, 38, 932968.
*Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of
sensemaking, institutional drivers, and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 189 213.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009).
Leadership: Current theories, research, and future
directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421
449.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational
leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Paper reviewed in Table 1, Selected Studies of

LeadershipCSR Link.

176

The Academy of Management Perspectives

Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the

modern world. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25.
*Buehler, V. M. & Shetty, Y. K. (1976). Managerial response to social responsibility challenge. Academy
of Management Journal, 19, 66 78.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility.
Business and Society, 38, 268 295.
Committee for Economic Development. (1971). Social
responsibilities of corporations. New York: Author.
*Crane, A. (2000). Corporate greening as amoralization.
Organization Studies, 21, 673 696.
Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. A.
(1995). Top management team characteristics and
corporate illegal activity. Academy of Management
Review, 20(1), 138 170.
Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 44 56.

May

Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders
inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316 331.
Jones Christensen, L., Peirce, E., Hoffman, M., & Hartman, L. (2007). An analysis of ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the Financial Times Top 40
international business schools: Baseline data and future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics,
73, 347368.
Jones, T. M., & Wick, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24,
206 221.
Karnani, A. (2010, August 23). The case against CSR.
Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
Kincaid, M. (2012). Building corporate social responsibility through servant leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 151171.

Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate

social responsibility. California Management Review, 26, 53 63.

Knight, K. (2008). Report: Consumers trust businesses

less. BizReport.com. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from
http://www.bizreport.com/2008/08/report_consumers_
trust_businesses_less.html

*Drumwright, M. E. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying: Environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58,
119.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D.

(2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multilevel assessment.
Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161177.

Franklin, D. (2008, January 17). Just good business. Economist. Special Issue on CSR. Retrieved March 24,
2014. http://www.economist.com/node/10491077

Mackey, A. (2008). The effects of CEOs on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1357
1367.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32, 817 835.

Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory.

Academy of Management Review, 24, 233236.
Gilbert, J. C., Houlahan, B., & Kassoy, A. (2013, July 17).
Today marks a tipping point in the evolution of
capitalism. Forbes. Retrieved March 24, 2014, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/
2013/07/17/today-marks-a-tipping-point-in-theevolution-of-capitalism
*Greening, D. W., & Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of
organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 467
498.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334 343.
Hart, S. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 986 1014.
*Huang, S. K. (2013). The impact of CEO characteristics
of corporate sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
20, 234 244.

Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2008). Senior

management preferences and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten,
J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of
Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 532542). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
*Manner, M. (2010). The impact of CEO characteristics
on corporate social performance. Journal of Business
Ethics, 93, 5372.
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009).
Does it pay to be good . . . and does it matter? A metaanalysis of the relationship between corporate social
and financial performance (Working Paper). Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1866371
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268 305.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit
CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative un-

2014

Jones Christensen, Mackey, and Whetten

derstanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404 424.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social
responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management
Journal, 21, 603 609.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social
responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 26, 117227.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006).
Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 118.
*Muller, A., & Kolk, A. (2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic
drivers of corporate social performance: Evidence
from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal
of Management Studies, 47, 126.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko,
L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a
mediator of the influence of initiating structure and
servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220 1233.
Orlitzky, M., Frank, L. S., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate
social and financial performance: A meta-analysis.
Organization Studies, 24, 403 441.
Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. (2013). License to ill: The
effects of corporate social responsibility and CEO
moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility.
Personnel Psychology, 66, 861 893.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A.(Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
*Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Leadership centrality
and corporate social ir-responsibility (CSIR): The potential ameliorating effects of self and shared leadership on CSIR. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 563
579.
*Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2008). The
roles of vertical and shared leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 353
359.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus
shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness
of change management teams: An examination of
aversive, directive, transactional, transformational
and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172197.
Pearce, C. L., Waldman, D., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.
(2006). Virtuous leadership: A theoretical model and
research agenda. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 3, 60 77.
Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership,
social work, and virtual teams: The relative influ-

177

ence of vertical versus shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In R. Riggio & S. Smith-Orr (Eds.), Nonprofit leadership (pp. 180 203). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Waldman, D. A. (2012). Different approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 51 65.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business
Review, 84, 78 91.
*Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in
employee ecoinitiatives at leading-edge European
companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
605 626.
*Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2012). Greening organizations through leaders influence on employees proenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34, 176 194.
Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B. R. (1999). The
relationship between social and financial performance: Repainting a portrait. Business and Society,
38, 109 125.
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based
perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 534 559.
*Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate
choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681 697.
Siegel, D. S. (2009). Green management matters only if it
yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23,
516.
Sternberg, E. (1999). The defects of stakeholder theory.
Corporate Governance, 5, 310.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with
leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 3571.
*Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A.,
& House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates
perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 626 654.
Sun, P. (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the
cognition and behavior of servant leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 544 557.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from

178

The Academy of Management Perspectives

the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership

Quarterly, 18, 298 318.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4),
1228 1261.
Vroom, V. H. & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and
decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Waddock, S. A. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies,
academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship.
Business and Society Review, 109, 5 42.
Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social
performancefinancial performance link. Strategic
Management Journal, 18, 303319.
Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson, S. (2011).
The neuroscience of leadership: Can we revolutionize the way that leaders are identified and developed? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1),
60 74.
*Waldman, D. A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., &
House, R. J. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top
management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 823 837.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam,
P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership
attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 143.
Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). Defining the
socially responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly,
19, 117131.
*Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006).
Components of CEO transformational leadership and
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 17031725.
Waldman, D. A., Wang, D., Stikic, M., Berka, C., Balthazard, P. A., Richardson, T., Pless, N. M., Maak, T.
(2013). Emergent leadership and team engagement:
An application of neuroscience technology and
methods. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1.
Walsh, J. P. (1989). Doing a deal: Merger and acquisition
negotiations and their impact upon target company
top management turnover. Strategic Management
Journal, 10, 307322.
Walsh, J. P., & Seward, J. K. (1999). On the efficiency of
internal and external corporate control mechanisms.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 421 458.
*Weaver, G. R., Trevio, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999a).

May

Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental
factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 4157.
*Weaver, G. R., Trevio, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999b).
Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 539 552.
Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2011). Applying the concept of organizational identity to the study of persistently distinctive organizational practices (Working
Paper). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 50 84.
Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research
on leadership in organizations. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3 (2nd ed.,
pp. 147197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Lisa Jones Christensen ([email protected]) is an assistant

professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where she earned her
PhD in organizational behavior. Her research interests
include corporate social responsibility, sustainable entrepreneurship, and leadership. In particular, she focuses
on CSR and sustainability in developing countries.
Alison Mackey ([email protected]) is an assistant
professor in the Management Department at California
Polytechnic State University. She earned her PhD in
business policy and strategy at the Ohio State University.
Her research interests include corporate social responsibility and strategic human capital. She received the Wiley Blackwell Outstanding Dissertation Award from the
BPS Division in 2007.
David A. Whetten ([email protected]) is the Jack
Wheatley Professor of Organizational Studies at Brigham
Young University. He is past president of the Academy of
Management and former editor of the Academy of Management Review and Foundations of Organizational Science. He has received Distinguished Scholar awards from
the OMT Division and the Western Academy of
Management.