Stephen Covey’s Leadership Approach and the Quest for Ethics in Leadership

The Journal of Values-Based Leadership The Journal of Values-Based Leadership

Volume 17

Issue 2

Summer/Fall 2024

Article 7

July 2024

Stephen Covey’s Leadership Approach and the Quest for Ethics in Stephen Covey’s Leadership Approach and the Quest for Ethics in

Leadership Leadership

Ezekiel Ifeanyichukwu Oko

Cologne University of Catholic Theology, Germany

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl

Part of the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, and the Leadership Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Oko, Ezekiel Ifeanyichukwu (2024) "Stephen Covey’s Leadership Approach and the Quest for Ethics in

Leadership,"

The Journal of Values-Based Leadership

: Vol. 17 : Iss. 2 , Article 7.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22543/1948-0733.1516

Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol17/iss2/7

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Business at ValpoScholar. It has been

accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Values-Based Leadership by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar.

For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected].

Article

Stephen Covey’s Leadership

Abstract

This article provides valuable insights from Stephen

Covey’s Principle-Centered Leadership (PCL) and

serves as a contribution to the critical efforts of leadership

practitioners and scholars to remedy organizations and

societies through their quest for ethics in leadership and

practice of value-based leadership (VBL). It explores the

predominant tenets and content of PCL and

demonstrates its significance in the current leadership

research. Using a meta-analysis in comparison with five

recent key theories of leadership, it reveals that those

theories adopt the insights of PCL to a great extent. Also,

subjecting PCL to the evaluative criteria of leadership

ethics, it demonstrated the ethical quality of PCL as a

leadership paradigm. These two rounds of analyses

brought PCL to the limelight of scholarly enquiry, hinting

at the significant place it could assume in future VBL research.

Introduction

This article seeks to bring valuable insights from Stephen Covey’s Principle-Centered

Leadership (PCL) to the limelight as a contribution to the critical efforts of leadership

practitioners and scholars to remedy organizations and societies through quest for ethics

in leadership and practice of value-based leadership (VBL). The contemporary quest for

ethics in leadership in response to the critical leadership challenges of many organization

and their concomitant dilemmas has no doubt spawned leadership theories, such as

ethical leadership (EL) (see Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Ciulla, 2014), authentic

leadership (AL) (see George, 2003; George, 2015), servant leadership (SL) (see Greenleaf,

1991; Spears, 1998; Eva, et al., 2014), transformational leadership (TL) (see Burns,

1978/2012; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2013), Leader-Manager Exchange (LMX)

(see Northouse, 2013, 161, 169f). These and similar leadership theories have ostensibly

contributed significantly to the emerging patterns of prioritizing ethics and values in

leadership research.

Some of these theories have merging points, which raises the question of their uniqueness

or portrays them as empirically redundant (see Butterworth, et al., 2024). Hence, in

addition to attempting to distinguishing these leadership theories through adequately

developed criteria for identifying their predictive antecedents and measuring their

outcomes/products/services (see, e.g., Eva et al., 2019; Butterworth, et al., 2024),

leadership studies should also embark on meta-analyses to show how these theories

relate to each other and why they could count as varying methods or aspects similarly

aimed to promote values-based leadership – albeit in differing circumstances.

FR. EZEKIEL IFEANYICHUKWU OKO

NIGERIA & BONN, GERMANY

PCL foresees this urgent requirement of meta-analysis in leadership studies by presenting

a complete package of factors, which in varying measures have been demonstrated by

leadership theories and practices to lead to VBL. PCL delivers in a single package, two

important factors of leadership which other theories seem to identify only partially. It

centers on ethics in its antecedents, processes, and outcomes as well as ensures a

balance of efficiency and effectiveness as necessary rungs towards a good leadership. It

was, however, a tremendous surprise for the author to discover that there was not much

reference to Covey’s PCL found in the contemporary leadership research despite its

possibly qualifying as a compendium for VBL.

As an attempt to bring PCL to the fore, therefore, this article shall first explore the major

ideas and content of PCL. A brief meta-analysis in comparison with five recent key theories

of leadership shall serve the purpose of discovering the extent to which those theories

adopt the insights of PCL. Thereafter, PCL shall be subjected to the evaluative criteria of

leadership ethics as a way of demonstrating its ethical quality as a leadership paradigm.

These rounds of analyses aim fundamentally to hint at the significant place PCL could

assume in future VBL research.

Stephen R. Covey and the Basic Argument of PCL

Who was Stephen R. Covey?

Stephen R. Covey (1932-2012) strove to help readers identify the principles that would

lead them to personal and professional effectiveness. As one of the key leadership

scholars and practitioners who believed that organizational leadership of their time,

marked with top-down structures and micromanaging styles, could not deliver the kind of

ethics urgently needed for piloting the affairs of organizations in the twenty-first century,

Covey made it his life’s mission to teach principle-centered living and principle-centered

leadership. As an authority in business administration, a professor of organizational

behavior and business management as well as the founder of Covey Leadership Center

(currently Franklin Covey Leadership Center), he impacted the lives of millions of

individuals and leaders in business through teaching and modelling (see Covey, 2002,

333f).

Besides his ground-breaking work, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” (Covey,

1989/2015), which employs a compelling, logical, and clearly defined process to change

the way people think and act about their problems, Covey published many other works that

could aid character formation and reframe the mindset towards effectiveness in business

(see Covey, 2002; Covey, 2005; and Covey, 1993). Among all his works, the book

“Principle-Centered Leadership” introduces the new leadership paradigm, PCL (Covey,

2002).

Four Underpinning Theses of PCL

I. Organizational Leadership is fundamentally about mobilizing and energizing

people at all levels of an organization in pursuit of their all-embracive needs

The basic rationale behind PCL is the understanding that leadership is, bottom line, all

about people. Leadership means fundamentally animating people around a common

mission and thereby unleashing their holistic potentialities and creative abilities as well as

attending genuinely to their needs with an all-inclusive approach (see Chappell, 2020, Talk

Series 1A). Covey often referred to this all-inclusive approach geared towards serving the

needs of all the stakeholders as Total Quality (TQ) (see Covey, 2002, 263-266;

Deming,1982/2018, 21-23). Here TQ bespeaks a commitment to continuous

improvement in four areas of business development – personal and professional

development, interpersonal relations, managerial effectiveness, and organizational

productivity, and aims at rendering the best quality services and/or products to all

stakeholders.

Notice that the commitment to TQ has people as its terminus a qua and terminus ad quem.

It is driven by the fundamental identification of business leadership with people and their

all-embracive nature and needs. Covey seems to issue a clarion call for an upgrade of the

traditional total quality management (TQM) to a leadership paradigm, in which the concern

is not only about leveraging performance and service but also fundamentally about

attending to the human agents of business as persons whose dimensions of needs are

more extensive than economic, social, and psychological (see Dale, 2003; Oakland, 1989,

22f; etc., for more details on TQM). PCL’s identification with TQ goes beyond the provisions

of management paradigm because it begins with a more elaborate understanding of the

human nature.

II. A holistic understanding of human nature is a sine qua non for achieving TQ in

leadership

PCL is an attempt to uphold TQ amid a steady flux of demands and conflicting interests

and to stand the test of time in business (see Covey, 2002, p. 15). Covey’s ultimate

illustration of the significance of TQ was firstly in connection with a holistic understanding

of who the human person was. For him, the human being was more than an “economic

man” (Covey, 2002, 177; see Melé & Cantón, 2014, 9-24; and Nass, 2018, for more

arguments on the reasons for the inadequacy of the assumptions of homo oeconomicus

(HO)). Neither can the “socioeconomic man” assumption of the Human Relation Paradigm

nor the idea of Human Resource Paradigm that the human person is merely an “economic,

social and psychological being” (Covey, 2002, 177f) satisfy PCL’s demand for TQ.

Here is the reason: the scientific management paradigm (SMP) sees people primarily as

HO. It cannot engage the emotional, psychological, and spiritual capacities nor address

the needs pertaining to those aspects. That is the reason it adopts the carrot-and-stick (an

authoritarian) style of leadership. In the same vein, the Human Relations Paradigm adopts

a reductionist assumption of human beings. It acknowledges that human beings are also

social beings (socio-economic assumption of human beings) but gives no place for his/her

psychological and spiritual capacities. It cannot address the psychological and spiritual

needs of the human agent. Hence it applies the benevolent authoritarian style of

leadership. On its part, the Human Resource Paradigm assumes that the human person is

not only an economic and social but also a psychological being. This assumption leverages

its more extended understanding of human nature to claim that the most significant asset

of an organization is its people, tapping their talents, creativity, resourcefulness, ingenuity,

and imagination for absolute maximization of economic efficiency. Covey rightly observed

that:

When people are seen as economic, social, and psychological beings with strong

needs and desires to grow and develop and have their talents used in creative and

constructive ways, managers try to create an environment in which people can

contribute their full range of talents to the accomplishment of organizational goals

(Covey, 2002, p. 178).

The problem is that even this assumption is a reductionist view of the human person. It

reduces the human agent to what he/she can produce or the service he/she can render.

PCL argues that there is more about the human person than these paradigms can harness

since they do not recognize the spiritual dimension of the human person. SMP “says, ‘pay

me well.’ The human relations…paradigm says, ‘Treat me well.’ The human resource

paradigm suggests, ‘Use me well’” (Covey, 2002, p. 180). None of the three paradigms

demands to identify with one’s purpose, or to engage one in pursuit of meaning. Only a

leadership paradigm with a holistic understanding of the nature of the human being could

make such a demand in addition to economic, emotional, and psychological needs. Unless

the workforce has personal connection to purpose and meaning in the work they do, they

may [at best] end up being used as “bundles of latent talents and capacity” (Covey, 2002,

p. 178).

PCL supplies for this absence and says, “Let’s talk about vision and mission, roles, and

goals. I want to make a meaningful contribution” (Covey, 2002, pp. 179f). It is a leadership

paradigm established on a holistic understanding of the nature of the human person, and

can, therefore, add the final (missing) link, the spiritual dimension. This additional link

connects the workforce to a purpose or meaning in a way that resonates with them as

whole persons. With that, their participation in pursuit of organizational goals assumes a

different meaning. Beyond fulfilling their economic, emotional, and psychological needs,

people want to contribute to the accomplishment of worthwhile objectives. They want to

be part of a mission and enterprise that transcends their individual tasks. They don’t want

to work in a job that has little meaning, even though it may tap their mental capacities.

They want purposes and principles that lift them, ennoble them, empower them, and

encourage them to their best selves (see Covey, 2002, p. 179).

This inclusion of the dimension of meaning (spirituality), paves way for a holistic

understanding of responsibility in business organizations and a TQ approach to human

dispositions and needs that supersede the single logic of economics and other reductionist

human assumptions (see Covey, 2002, pp. 176-178). Covey’s conviction resonates with

the words of Teilhard de Chardin that “we are not human beings having a spiritual

experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience” (Chappell, 2020, Talk

Series 6B; Furey, 1993, p. 138). Covey believes that this openness to the spiritual

dimension gives PCL an added quality that differentiates it from other three paradigms,

and that this difference is of kind, not of degree.

III. TQ Approach Can only Be Guaranteed by Anchoring Leadership to Timeless

Principles

Since organizational leadership means energizing people towards TQ, a good leadership

example cannot be guided by the whims and caprices of the leaders or by immediate

interests and gains, but by objective, normative measures, that is, indisputable standards

that can never compromise TQ. The fundamental idea behind this was Covey’s conviction

that “there are principles that govern human effectiveness – natural laws in the human

dimension that are just as real and unchanging …as laws such as gravity are in the physical

dimension” (Covey, 1989/2015, p. 40). Of great importance here was the deliberate use

of the term “principles,” intended to convey the idea of objective normative measures.

Covey sees “principles” as an objective and changeless reality “not invented by us or by

society;…laws of the universe that pertain to human relationships and human

organizations” (Covey, 2002, p. 18).

What Covey refers to here as “principles” could be understood in a strict sense as “ethical

principles,” because they are objective standards for assessing the quality of subjective

and social values (Covey, 1989/2015, p. 43) through which critical leadership challenges

like change, contentions, capacity, and competition could be addressed (see Chappell,

2020, Talk Series 1B). In other words, principles imply objective reality beyond subjective

measures of goodness. Ethical principles are norms which cannot derive from cultures and

individual values because they supersede the latter and serve as standards for judging

their ethical qualities. Fairness, honesty, integrity, equity, justice, and trust, etc., are

examples of such principles. They are indisputable standards from which individual

interests and values cannot deviate without critical consequences (see Covey, 2002, pp.

18, 95; Covey, 1989/2015, 43f). As a principle-centered solution, PCL is, therefore, a

normative objectivist approach – an endorsement of the normative unconditionality of the

good (see Nass, 2023, pp.107, 111, 113f; Nass, 2018, pp.123-128, 160) in business

pursuit.

IV. Principles Should Precede Values and Constitute True North in Organizational

Leadership

Interestingly, PCL makes a conscious distinction between principles and values (see Covey,

Merrill, & Merrill, 1994/2002, pp. 52-56; Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 1A). If values are

understood as what people create for their own purposes, they can become irrelevant and

outdated in the course of time and therefore be subject to change in the face of business

challenges like competitiveness (see Hunter, 2004, pp. 128-138). In Covey’s account,

values include things that are important to business such as profit, technology,

competition, policy, and business image (see Covey, 2002, pp. 20-25), but which are not

indispensable.

Consider, for instance, a clothing company where honesty is a principle that management

upholds due to its universal correctness while “being fashionable and trendy” are values

which management upholds due to their relevance to business image. The relevance of

these values justifies their presence. Consider a situation where the company was to

change its operations to say, corporate accounting. They are likely to continue upholding

honesty as a crucial principle, but “fashionable and trendy” would become irrelevant

values (Ahmed, 2021). In fact, values are measures of importance, while ethical principles

are standards of judgment about good and bad (see Shockley-Zalabak, 1999, p. 438).

In a certain sense, the demands of individual bodies of stakeholders – including

shareholders, customers, employees, and suppliers – are accorded the status of “values.”

They should be valued but their demands should not become the true north of

organizational leadership. The argument is it is possible that a particular body of

stakeholders’ values, and therefore demands, might jeopardize the legitimate needs of

other stakeholders and thus, conflict with ethical principles like equity or fairness. If

leadership is guided by this value – in this case, the demands of a particular branch of

stakeholders – it is most certain that it jeopardizes the ethical bearing of the organization

(see Covey, 2002, pp. 20-25). An unprincipled attention to stakeholders’ demands has

been identified as one of the major antecedents of ethical crisis in business organizations

(see George, 2003, Chapter 14). Hence, PCL proposes principles that seek to contribute

to the good of all stakeholders instead of focusing only on the immediate commercial gains

that would favor only a particular group of stakeholders (see Covey, 2002, pp. 258, 299).

To buttress the indispensability of principles, Covey uses the compass (or true north)

metaphor in contradistinction to maps (see Covey, 2002, p. 19f), remarking that principles

are like a compass, which remains changeless across changing time and structures. “A

compass has a true north that is objective and external, that reflects natural laws or

principles, as opposed to values that are subjective and internal. Because the compass

represents the verities of life, we must develop our value system with respect for true north’

principles” (Covey, 2002, 94; emphasis is not in the original). This implies that principles

are basic and indispensable for good leadership (see Covey, 1989/2015, pp. 190-197).

Because of their changing feature and conflicting tendency, “values” cannot sufficiently

serve as the true north of leadership, but principles can and do.

The metaphor of true north or compass and distinction of principles from values are meant

to show that, amid change, principles endow people with the ability not only to live with

change, but also to flow and thrive with it. Adopting Principle-Centered Leadership would

then help to overcome competition by building trust, to defeat contention by building

emotional stability and adopting synergy in relationships with others as well as avoiding

unethical exploitation of human resources by helping them tap into their full potential and

engage in fulfilling services for the society (see Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 1B; Covey,

2002, 17f).

Here is the point Covey wants to make: there are varying orientations to leadership, but

they may fail or become outdated and irrelevant. Orientation towards principles is a true

north and cannot fail if practiced well. This calls to mind Kohlberg’s concept of hierarchy

of morality which considers orientation towards principles the highest stage of morality

(see Kohlberg, 1963, Chapter 7). PCL would pass in Kohlberg’s hierarchy as the highest

ethical orientation in doing business.

An Elaboration on PCL

These four theses form the bedrock of PCL. They reflect three essential factors that cannot

be compromised in leadership for it to be truly principle-centered in Covey’s view.

Leadership must engage people holistically from the perspective of their economic, social,

psychological, and spiritual needs, be anchored in ethical principles, and aim at delivering

TQ results to all stakeholders. Other explications about PCL are simply details about how

these factors can apply in practice.

In Covey’s conception, these three factors apply to four respective levels, namely,

personal/professional, interpersonal, managerial, and organizational levels and any

business organization can be built on them.

The illustration shows that PCL begins at the bottom with people and the correct

understanding of who a person is – the person who becomes not only the agent of

leadership but also the negotiator of organizational relationships, the manager of

leadership processes, and the receiver of its dividends. When the person is understood

not only as a being with economic, social, and psychological needs, but also as

fundamentally in pursuit of meaning (spiritual being), new arrays and perspectives of

engagement, negotiations, and agreement are opened (see Nass, 2018, on why a more

elaborate anthropology can determine the ethical strength of leadership paradigms). It

becomes possible to consider engagement in a business organization primarily as a

pursuit of meaning, whereby in addition to meeting one’s economic, social, and

Figure 1: Four levels of PCL in Practice (designed by the author based on Covey’s Concept).

Covey, 2002, p. 32).

psychological needs, one can understand business as a pursuit of mission beyond short-

term goals and selfish interests.

This basic human understanding which constitutes the first level of leadership determines

the take-off point, for which PCL is considered by Covey to imply a paradigm shift (see

Covey, 2002, pp. 154, 286). It establishes the ground for anchoring leadership to ethical

principles, whose first conglomerate Covey identifies as trustworthiness (character and

competence). In Covey’s words, “Trustworthiness is at the core of the inside-out approach

and is a function of two things – character and competence” (Covey, 2002, 183f). As much

as character is considered vital in making someone trustworthy, Covey thinks it is

insufficient if there is no corresponding competence. An honest surgeon without adequate

knowledge in his or her professional field cannot be trustworthy, regarding performing a

critical surgery. Although Covey refers to trustworthiness as a principle, it is more realistic

to understand it as a conglomerate of ethical principles because it takes series of

principles to build trustworthy character and competence (see Covey, S. M. R., Link &

Merrill, 2012; Covey, S. M. R., et al., 2022). One needs to imagine a situation where the

leader, the follower (employer, workforce), the individual shareholders, the customer, the

members of the community, the supplier, etc., who get actively involved in an

organizational leadership, show themselves as persons of character and competence. It

means they are not only ethically disposed, but also efficiently skilled to assume their

responsibilities. This constitutes the first level of PCL – the personal/professional level –

which Covey refers to as the building block of PCL. According to Covey, “the key to our

personal quality is character and competence and the emotional bank account we have

with other people” (Covey, 2002, p.187).

The second is the level of interpersonal relations. People with character and competence

are trustworthy and can operate with trust in negotiating common ground. When leaders

consider employees as people in pursuit of not only economic, social, and psychological

needs, but also meaning, they realize the need to engage them in a win-win process.

However, such negotiation becomes easier when the persons can vouch for the

trustworthiness of each other. Relationships of trust emerge via this process (see Covey,

1989/2015; Covey, 1993, 131f; and Covey, 2012). Trust is the conglomeration of

principles at interpersonal level of PCL. It involves not only trustworthiness, but also

negotiating skills and emotional intelligence. The current author is of the strong view that

there is no level of relationship pertaining to organizational leadership that can meet the

demands of ethics, effectiveness, and true efficiency if the principles of trustworthiness

and trust are overlooked (see, also, Nass, 2017, p. 69, for more perspectives on how the

principles of trustworthiness and trust are fundamental to ethical leadership).

The next level is that of managerial effectiveness. A culture of trust gradually emanates

from relationships of trust. At this managerial level, individuals bond together as teams for

undertaking specific responsibilities in a particular department. Covey establishes that

style of influence and skill for team-building are the two important domains of the

managerial level. Empowerment is the reference point of all the principles working at this

level. It is the basic style of influence (see Covey, 2002, p. 184). For Covey, empowerment

means delegation of power for self-management. It is considered a better style of influence

than control or micromanaging because it leverages on a win-win agreement basis and

creates more room for innovation, initiative, and commitment. People learn to take

ownership of what they do because they are entrusted with the power to take initiative and

be responsible. This kind of empowerment cannot be practiced without relationships of

trust.

In a PCL paradigm, people placed in charge of certain managerial positions do not see

their subordinates as things to be micro-managed, but as team-members sharing actively

in the mission of the organization, as responsible stewards of the common good. Consider

a situation where individuals are empowered to evolve into responsible stewards because

through a relationship of trust and disposition for mutual agreement at an interpersonal

level, they are convinced of the convergence of the organizational mission with their own

individual sense of meaning and integrity. They no longer operate with a hired-worker

mentality, but with a sense of ownership and internal motivation towards contributing to a

meaning bigger than themselves (see Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 2B for illustrations

through examples).

At the organizational level, these principles and values already discussed come into play

in defining the corporate mission statement that becomes the operational policy (living

constitution) of the organizations (see Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 1B). A corporate

mission statement should be “developed by a participative process” (Covey, 2002, 294;

see also Covey, 1989/2015,p. 218) and must embody a co-mingling of mission between

the individuals and the organization (see Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 3A) and be an

overlapping of the value system of the individuals and that of the organization (see Covey,

2002, 293), crisscrossing the four human needs of all stakeholders with the needs of the

organization (see Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 2B, 3A).

Hence, the centripetal force of leadership at the organizational level is the creation of the

corporate mission statement and alignment of same with organizational structure(s) and

systems. According to Covey, “[t]he key principle behind structure and systems, along with

strategy and streams is alignment. With the mission statement in place, the critical

executive imperative is to align each of the [structure, systems, strategy, and streams] with

the principles embodied in the mission statement” (Covey, 2009, p. 185). Regarding

structure (the hierarchy of the organization), PCL considers every person equal and valued

in the face of the constitution, or the corporate mission statement. For Covey, a flat

structure, dynamic and open to learning in all directions – inside-out and bottom-top – is

the kind of structure in which shared mission summons all to commitment and

responsibility in a subsidiary manner. This sense of responsibility to the shared mission is

equally responsibility to oneself, to co-workers, and to all stakeholders.

If the structure is likened to the skeletal system of the human body, Covey thinks that there

are at least six more systems that should align with the corporate mission statement to

keep an organization at equilibrium. They include information, compensation, training, and

development, recruiting and deploying, job design and communication systems (see

Covey, 2002, 186f). Thus, Covey employs the metaphor of the human body to explain how

an organization remains in equilibrium by the delineated systems. At the heart of each of

the systems is an emphasis on a healthy interaction between the good of the individual

and that of the organization, which the corporate mission statement should represent.

Furthermore, Covey explains two other elements – streams and strategies. He notes that

while streams represent operational environments inside and outside the organization

(see Covey, 2002, 187) “[t]he strategy [is action plan and] should be congruent with the

professed mission, with available resources, and with market conditions.…[and] monitored

and changed to reflect shifts in the wind, including the status of the competition” (Covey,

2002, 187). Figure 2 (above) is a representation of the four levels of PCL in addition to its

mission of delivering TQ to both internal and external streams of the organization.

From the foregoing, PCL is not only an inside-out (from the nucleus – the principles, values,

and vision couched in a mission statement) approach, but also a bottom-top (from

individuals to all levels of hierarchy) style. Embedded therein is the fundamental

dedication towards delivering TQ in respect to empowerment, services, and products to all

stakeholders. Covey argues that TQ begins with total personal quality. In other words,

realization of TQ must begin with the kind of leadership and empowerment delivered to

the people in the internal stream.

Built into what could rightly be called the systematics of PCL is the normative character,

demanding that both leaders and followers (executive and workforce) alike align their

business actions to timeless principles. There is no room for arbitrariness because there

is a corporate mission guided by values anchored to principles and aimed at TQ.

Leadership actions that do not align with a holistic view of persons, timeless principles,

and the goal of TQ cannot fit into the systematics because they can easily generate a

normative concern. Here below is a tabular recapitulation of this systematics:

Figure 2: A Recapitulation of Covey’s PCL (A Self-Construct)

Table 1: Systematics of PCL from a Self-Perspective

The significance of PCL is that it promises an effective response to the major leadership

challenges of our time – conflicts of values and ethical dilemmas which readily lead to

unethical preferences amid the continuous flux that steadily engulfs business endeavors

(see Covey, 2002, p. 30; Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 1A). Leadership research and

literature demonstrate the fact that unethical preferences ensue as definite outcome of

an inordinate focus on short-term results and reductionist understanding of human needs

(see George, 2003, 1-4). Anchored to timeless principles as true north, PCL is argued to

be an indisputable and effective antidote to these challenges. By adopting a holistic view

of persons, it empowers them adequately towards abundance mentality by which struggles

for capacity and unhealthy competitions can be overcome. Moreover, when leadership

aims at delivering TQ results to all stakeholders, as is the case in PCL, the challenge of

contentions and clash of interests in business could be handled effectively (see Chappell,

2020, Talk Series 1B). In the following two rounds of analysis, this study shall demonstrate

further the significance of PCL as a paradigm of leadership effectiveness and ethics.

1. The Relevance of PCL in Relation to Major Contemporary Leadership Theories

The author is convinced that PCL provides a rich insight that could help evaluate not only

the effectiveness of leadership theories, but also their ethical quality. Spohn (2008) has

undertaken a kind of pathfinding meta-analysis of leadership theories in relation to PCL.

However, the study was limited to Covey’s seven habits of effective leadership (see Covey,

1989/2015). The seven habits include 1) Be proactive (principle-centered motivation); 2)

Begin with the end in mind (visionary); 3) Put first things first (prioritize); 4) Think win-win

(symbiotic relationship); 5) Seek first to understand, then to be understood (other-sensitive

communication); 6) Synergize (creativity/team spirit); and 7) Sharpen the saw (TQ-

empowerment) (Covey, 1989/2015; see, also, Spohn, 2008, 1-3). These habits could be

summarized in Covey’s view that leadership is about taking up the three responsibilities –

pathfinding, empowerment, and team-building – in a manner that corresponds with ethical

principles (see, Chappell, 2020, Talk Series 5B).

Spohn (2008) undertook a comparison of Covey’s concept of leadership effectiveness with

five leadership theories – EL, AL, TL, SL, and LMX. The study discovered among other

things that, even though different theories propose unique characteristics and tendencies

for effective leadership, those characteristics resonate with Covey’s seven habits (Covey,

1989/2015) in varying degrees. TL theory shares the greatest number of the habits with

Covey’s effective leadership, while LMX theory adopts the least. TL theory shares six of the

seven habits, EL and SL theories identify respectively with four each, AL theory adopts

three and LMX two (Spohn, 2008, p. 4).

The major hint from Spohn’s findings is the fact that the key leadership theories agree in

varying degrees with the principles recommended by PCL regarding effective leadership.

In other words, there is a confluence of features between those leadership theories and

PCL. One way of interpreting this confluence is that each of those theories emphasizes

specific aspects or a combination of principles of PCL and applies same in defining its

conceptual boundaries. Each model is then named after its predominant principle(s).

EL theory, for instance, is so named to emphasize the role of ethics in leadership. It agrees

with PCL by emphasizing principle-centered motivation (habit 1), win-win relationship

(habit 4), other-conscious communication (habit 5), and TQ-empowerment (habit 7). As

defined by Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005), EL is “the demonstration of normatively

appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the

promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement

and decision-making” (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005, p. 120, emphasis is not in the

original). Varied theories of leadership can qualify as ethical, to the extent that they

“connect moral leadership with leader effectiveness” (Ciulla, 2014, p. 50).

AL theory highlights the principle of relational transparency, whether from the

intrapersonal, interpersonal, or developmental perspective (see, Northouse, 2013, p. 254;

George, 2003; George, 2007; George & Clayton, 2022; Butterworth et al., 2024). Avolio et

al., (2004) highlight the disposition underlying the said transparent interaction: “We

conceive of authentic leaders as persons who have achieved high levels of authenticity in

that they know who they are, what they believe and value, and they act upon those values

and beliefs while transparently interacting with others” (Avolio et al., 2004, p. 802,

emphasis is not in the original; see, also, Craig et al., 2023, p. 3). AL identifies with three

of Covey’s seven habits, all principles concerning majorly interpersonal relationships:

relationship, communication, and empowerment (Spohn, 2008, p. 4).

On its part, TL theory focuses on the principle of mutual empowerment and transformation,

whereby the process of leadership raises the levels of motivation and morality in both the

leaders and the employees (see Bass & Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978/2012, Part III; Ciulla

(2014), pp. 30, 48; and Northouse, 2013, p. 186, for more details on the varying versions

of TL). Van Dierendonck defines it as “a leadership style with explicit attention to the

development of followers through individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation,

and supportive behavior” (Van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1235, emphasis added). According

to Spohn (2008), TL emphasizes all the seven habits but one – prioritization (habit 3).

SL theory centers on the principle of service, whereby leaders are expected to possess the

disposition of servants. As defined by Eva et al., (2019), SL is “an other-oriented approach

to leadership manifested through one-on-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and

interests, and outward reorienting of their concern for self towards concern for others

within the organization and the larger community” (Eva et al., 2019, p. 114). “It begins

with the natural feeling that one wants to serve. Then the conscious choice brings one to

aspire to lead” (Greenleaf, 1977/1991, p. 13). The premium on service is the predominant

principle for understanding and practicing SL. In Spohn’s (2008) study, SL highlights only

those habits that are other-affirmative and empowering – habits 2, 4, 5 and 6.

The final theory to compare is LMX. PCL resonates in one sense with LMX because it (LMX)

understands leadership not as a top-down leader-follower monolithic relationship, but as

a process involving dyadic interactions between leaders and followers (see Northouse,

2013, 161,169). That could be the reason behind Spohn’s finding that LMX identifies with

two of the seven habits of effective leadership – habits 4 and 5. Northouse (2013) concurs

with the idea that LMX theory underscores an aspect of effectiveness in leadership, and

that is especially through its propensity for advancing common goals through an effort-

reward system (see Northouse, 2013, p. 169f). However, its tendency to favor only the

strong and effective workers has the limitation of discriminating against the weak (see

Northouse, 2013, p. 170), an aspect which PCL’s concept of TQ for all stakeholders does

not support.

What the foregoing brief representations of the key leadership theories indicate is that

each emphasizes a particular principle or group of principles and chooses specific levels

of influence. Here is a tabular recapitulation of their unique preferences:

Table 2: PCL in Relation to Leadership Theories (deduced by the author)

Theory

Featured Habits of

Effectiveness

(Spohn, 2008)

Predominant

Principle(s)

Docking Point with

PCL

Limitation(s)

Principle-centered

motivation,

relationships,

communication,

Life balance

Morality

Normative

objectivity, timeless

principles

Evaluates only the leaders,

their actions, and

influences

Relationships,

communication, life

balance

Authenticity,

relational

transparency,

self-awareness

Trustworthiness,

trust, total personal

quality

More focus on the

psychological than on other

dimensions of being human

Principle-centered

motivation, visionary,

relationships,

communication,

creativity, life balance

Empowerment

Empowerment,

commitment to TQ

No room for transactional

style of leadership

Visionary, relationships,

communication,

creativity

Service

Empowerment,

Commitment to TQ

Can compromise the sense

of responsibility of the

followers if service is not

guided by right ethical

principles

LMX

Relationship &

communication

Dyadic

interactions

Win-win agreement,

trust relationships

Effort-reward system can

discriminate against the

weak

PCL is conceptualized in terms of ethical principles, and as such possesses characteristics

that give it docking points for all the other theories. It can engage the basic principles of

those other theories at diverse levels both conceptually and in practice. In other words,

one may logically say that PCL involves LMX, possesses the characteristics of being ethical,

authentic, transformational, and embodies principles of service that can align with SL

theory. However, PCL cannot be fully defined by any of the theories.

For instance, as already pointed out, LMX’s tendency to discriminate against the weak (see

Northouse, 2013, 170f), is a limitation to which PCL’s disposition for win-win agreement

and commitment of TQ to all stakeholders provides a sufficient solution. The point is that

PCL can dock with LMX’s principle of interactive relationship through its principle of win-

win agreement. However, it does this without letting itself be entirely defined by LMX

theory. PCL highlights other principles – like care for the well-being of all stakeholders –

which characterize it as a broader approach to leadership than LMX. It rewards committed

efforts, but it can as well help create motivations and empowerment towards such efforts

in the first place.

The above analysis is simply an example which can be repeated with any of the other listed

leadership theories. Each of them has a way of promoting effectiveness in leadership (see

Humphrey, 2014, part iv). But to the extent they ignore other important principles for

effective and good leadership, they could fail. PCL’s emphasis on holistic and TQ approach

to leadership is the reason why it can dock with any of the major leadership theories

without being subsumed by them. And, if Covey’s habits of effective leadership are

inevitably essential for effectiveness of leadership, it would also be in order to argue that

other leadership theories are effective to the extent that they adopt those habits. That

would imply that PCL could serve as a model of measurement for other leadership theories.

The foregoing analysis highlights the advantages of PCL over other leadership theories.

Nevertheless, despite these logical derivations of the strengths of PCL, a comprehensive

assessment of the ethical qualities of PCL cannot be completely verified without examining

it in the light of the systematics of leadership ethics. The reason is that effectiveness does

not already mean that a theory is ethical (see Ciulla, 2014, pp. 50-52); rather, a good

leadership must reflect both ethics and effectiveness (see Ciulla, 2014, p. 16).

2. PCL and the Quest for Ethics in Leadership

The emergence of various leadership theories has been attributed to the inability of the

status quo to address contemporary leadership challenges and those challenges mostly

feature as conflict of values and ethical dilemmas (see Senge, 1995; Covey, S. M. R., and

Merrill, 2008, p. 62). Since leadership consists principally in human influences, which can

mostly be evaluated in ethical terms, ethics and leadership are inseparable (see Hartmann

& Conklin, 2014). Therefore, the approach(es) recommended by leadership theories for

resolving ethical dilemmas and conflict of values and for ensuring leadership effectiveness

should always be subjected to the evaluative criteria of leadership ethics (see Nass, 2018).

This is to forestall arbitrariness (see Böckel, 2016, p. 37). This demand should apply to

PCL as well. Another way of demonstrating the significance of PCL is, therefore, to appraise

its ethical quality through the evaluative prisms of leadership ethics.

Although leadership ethics is still an emerging interdisciplinary field, some leadership

scholars have defined important criteria of evaluation which have not yet been faulted.

Nass (2018) works out a four-dimensional evaluation (see Nass, 2018). They include: 1)

the ethical justifiability of the set of values on which leadership is based; 2) the question

of ethical balance in the relation of business goals; 3) effectiveness of interactive influence

between individuals, relationships, and rules; and 4) practical alignability of the ethical

contents in lived leadership culture. This four-dimensional evaluation helps not only to

assess the ethical quality of the basis of values of an organizational leadership, but also

to check-proof whether the “basis of values and the concrete scopes of application follow

in a consistent normative logic” (Nass & Kreuer, 2018, p. 4). Here below is an evaluation

of PCL using the criteria of leadership ethics.

2.1 Basis of Values and Ethical Background of PCL

Leadership ethics interrogates the basis of values of an organizational leadership, seeking

to assess the understanding of human being it assumes and whether that assumption

provides an adequate ethical background for conceiving responsibility and achieving a

good leadership. According to Nass (2017), “the basis of values demands of a leadership

ethic ... a decision on the basic understanding of the respective human orientation” (Nass,

2017, 71, translation by the author). An incomplete conception of the human person, as

in the case of HO (see Nass, 2018; Melé & Cantón, 2014, pp. 9-24, 28), hints a limitation

of ethical quality of leadership.

Couched in the nomenclature, ‘principle-centered’ PCL is a leadership paradigm centered

on ethical principles revolving around trust. Covey jettisons any “incomplete or deeply

flawed paradigm or view of human nature – one that undermines people’s sense of worth

and straitjackets their talents and potential” (Covey, 2012, p. 10). Besides its integral and

holistic understanding of the human being as economic/physical, social/emotional,

psychological, and spiritual being, PCL puts measures to protect the dignity, individuality,

and freedom of each human member of the organization. In Covey’s words,

We see that people are not just resources or assets, not just economic, social, and

psychological beings. They are also spiritual beings; they want meaning, a sense of

doing something that matters. … There must be purposes that lift them, ennoble them,

and bring them to their highest selves. … People want to contribute to the

accomplishment of worthwhile objectives. They want to be part of a mission and

enterprise that transcends their individual tasks. …They want purposes and principles

that lift them, ennoble them, inspire them, empower them, and encourage them to

their best selves (Covey, 2002, 178).

Individual members are, therefore, not treated merely as objects or instruments for the

business goals of the organization, rather, as ends in themselves, because the whole

organigram of PCL is people oriented. PCL defines the human person, therefore, beyond

the boundaries of single logic of economics. It endorses a complex anthropology that not

only corroborates the idea of ethics of human action based on objective values but also

traces the final ethical legitimacy to a Transcendence. Its recognition of the human person

as a spiritual being connected to a purpose and meaning beyond oneself classifies PCL

under the metaphysical school of thought (see Nass, 2018, 185f for more explications on

metaphysical paradigms).

2.2 Ethics of the Goal Orientations of PCL

Even with a robust ethical content a model of leadership cannot qualify as an ethical

leadership in the judgement of leadership ethics if it has a disproportionate goal

orientation. According to Nass (2018), a leadership model cannot qualify as ethical if it

does not have a way of achieving ethical balance of economic efficiency with human

services (see Nass, 2018, 90). That is not the case in PCL. Covey demonstrates that PCL

has a balanced goal orientation, because it pursues not only economic well-being but also

quality of life for all stakeholders of the organization (see Covey, 2002, 296f; Covey, S. M.

R., and Merrill, 2006/2008, p. 280).

Covey highlights the importance of economic well-being because “organizations are

established primarily to serve economic purposes. Employment is the way people derive

their livelihoods. … Jobs are to produce wealth, to produce things that people can use and

consume in their daily lives — and, ideally, enough money to pay taxes, tuition, and

everything else” (Covey, 2002, p. 296). In other words, he recognizes that the goal of

economic well-being should be considered essential in the leadership of any business

organization.

Interestingly, Covey’s idea of economic well-being is to be understood in connection with

his understanding of the human person. It is not about the self-interest of HO-logic,

whereby economic profits could be pursued specifically for the reason of serving personal

selfish interest and business agreements. On the contrary, the theory of TQ is the guiding

principle that ensures ethical balance of goals in PCL. According to the four basic needs of

being human – to live, to love, to learn, and to leave a legacy – the human person is more

than his or her economic interest. His/her well-being goes beyond the single logic of

economics.

TQ regarding economic well-being implies also that the economic interest of all

stakeholders and not only the shareholders should be attended to. Economic quality of a

business organization should, therefore, be measured not only in terms of the marginal

economic profit of the company but also in terms of the contributions it is making in solving

economic needs of all stakeholders. In Covey’s words, “business executives should be

concerned with the overall quality of life of their stakeholders” (Covey, 2002, p. 296).

This idea of TQ regarding the well-being of stakeholders corresponds with Aburdene’s and

Covey, S. M. R., & Merrill’s (2006/2008) finding that companies that excel in relationships

with all stakeholders outperform others with a big margin (see Aburdene, 2005/2007, 22f;

Covey, S. M. R., & Merrill, 2006/2008, p. 278). In view of setting the overall quality of life

of all stakeholders as its goal of business endeavor, PCL has, therefore, no reductionist

understanding of economic well-being, since it incorporates services in response to other

needs of the stakeholders. Here, one calls to mind Maslow’s pyramid of human needs (see

Melé & Cantón, 2014, 100f for Maslow’s eight groups of human needs). Covey thinks that

the goal of leadership should not overlook any of the human needs. For Covey, unlike in

Maslow’s view, they are not hierarchical but integral needs.

2.3 Ethics of the Organizational Culture of PCL

In the context of PCL, the pivotal question here is: how ethically effective is the

organizational culture recommended by PCL? In response to this, one would rightly think

that a leadership culture based on the principles of trust and empowerment, as

recommended in PCL, can generate effective interactive influences between individuals,

consolidated on ethical relationships and rules and regulations guided by the shared

mission, vision, and values. PCL provides a theoretical framework on which the culture of

trust can be established.

Covey argues for six conditions of empowerment, namely, Character, Skills, Win-win

agreement, Self-Supervision, Helpful Structures and Systems and Accountability.

According to him, PCL begins with establishing “win-win agreements with people,

motivating them to cultivate certain desired skills and character traits and allowing them

to supervise themselves under the terms of the agreement. We set up helpful structures

and systems, and we require people to give an accounting regularly” (Covey, 2002, 228f;

emphasis added). These six principles summarize his response to the question regarding

ethical effectiveness of leadership culture to be anticipated in PCL.

In the first place, they reveal that, for the practice of PCL, the right culture can only be built

on an ethical tripod stand consisting of virtue-, social- and company- (organizational-)

ethics. While the first two empowerment strategies – character and skills – emphasize

virtue ethics and can dispose the individual for the highest level of responsibility to oneself,

win-win agreement is the basic social ethical leg of the tripod. It makes critical interaction

possible. The remaining three strategies – self-Supervision, helpful Structures, and

Systems as well as Accountability provide further ethical guide from the perspective of a

company’s rules and regulations.

In this arrangement, there is flexibility of control, giving room for self-supervision as well

as necessary interventions for the good of both the individuals and the organization. “It is

almost infinitely flexible and adaptable to any set of circumstances or to any level of

maturity or competence” (Covey, 2002, p. 192). Such communication system corresponds

ethically with all other principles of PCL paradigm and aligns with its understanding of the

human nature. PCL promises, therefore, an ethical culture in which individuals are not

coerced into business relationships through egoistic, deceptive, or ulterior motives of

business leaders. Instead, they are valued as free individuals, who choose to collaborate

with others in pursuit of a shared mission. PCL promotes a culture of responsible freedom

and a robust sense of stewardship at all levels, with a three-dimensional sense of

responsibility – to self, to others and to God (see Covey, 2002, pp. 91f, 225).

2.4 Ethical Alignability in the Practice of PCL

In PCL, the high premium on confluence of character and competence at all levels can be

argued to be too idealistic as to be realistic. Covey’s response to such fear is that there is

no short cut to TQ. TQ must be achieved through following timeless principles. He admits

by many practical examples that character and competence take time and concerted

efforts and commitments to precipitate into virtuous habits. His recommendation of seven

habits for effectiveness buttresses the possibility of cultivating principle centered life at

personal level through practice (see Covey, 2002, pp.40-47; Covey, 1989/2015; Hole,

2014).

At organizational level, however, the principle of alignment comes into play, whereby

through a collaborative creation of (and/or identification with) a corporate mission

statement the ethical principles of PCL are practiced. The process of creation and

implementation of a corporate mission statement provides opportunities for win-win

agreement, empowerment, and team building, and embodies criteria for TQ (see Chappell,

2020, Talk series 6A). That is why Covey suggests a simple definition of PCL as

“empowering and unifying people around a shared mission, while living and working in

harmony with natural laws” (see Chappell, 2020, Talk series 6A). When people identify

with the shared mission, they become intrinsically motivated. This promotes mutual trust

and emotional and empathetic engagement in the mission with team spirit. The functions

of principle-centered leaders become then fundamentally three-dimensional –

pathfinding, empowerment, and team building. These functions make leaders and

followers (employees) collaborators. In a collaborative relationship they align the corporate

mission statement with systems of the organization – recruitment & deployment,

information, communication, job design, training & development, and compensation &

reward systems.

Conclusion

This study has attempted to unpack the underpinning theses of PCL and to demonstrate

that PCL can occupy an essential place in the quest for ethics in organizational leadership.

This is because it recommends timeless principles, especially principles of trust,

empowerment, and ethical alignment, which most theories of leadership seek to unravel

and promote. In a brief meta-analysis carried out in comparison with such leadership

theories as ET, AL, TL, SL, and LMX, PCL shows itself as an embodiment of those timeless

principles which other theories emphasize only in part. If future leadership studies set to

verify the principles on which leadership theories are based, PCL can provide an elaborate

view for measuring the completeness of those theories. Finally, an evaluation of PCL in the

light of the criteria of leadership ethics shows that PCL qualifies as ethical in all

ramifications, that is, in its basis of values, leadership goals, and culture and leadership

practices. It serves as a good and balanced model of leadership ethics.

___________________________________________________________________________

References

Aburdene, P. (2005/2007). Megatrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism.

Charlottesville (Virginia): Hampton Road Publishing Co.

Ahmed, A. (2021). Ethics, Morals, Principles, Values, and Beliefs. What is the Difference?

Values Institute. https://values.institute/ethics-morals-principles-values-virtues-and-

beliefs-what-is-the-difference/

Avolio B. J., et al. (2004). Unlocking the Mask: A Look at the Process by which Authentic

Leaders Impact Follower Attitudes and Behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-

823.

Bass, B., & Riggo, R. (2006). Transformational Leadership (Second Edition). Mahwah:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Böckel, H. (2016). Führen und Leiten: Dimensionen eines evangelischen Führungs-

verständnisses, Berlin.

Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning

Perspective for Construct Development and Testing. Organisational Behaviour and

Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Burns, J. M. (1978/2012). Leadership (Kindle Edition). New York: Open Books.

Butterworth, M., Black, J., & Terry, R. (2024). Authentic Leadership Measures: An Authentic

Measure for Authentic Leadership? The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 17(1), 1-

27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22543/1948-0733.1480.

Chappell, E. (2020). Stephen R. Covey: Principle Centered Leadership, Talk Series 1A-6B,

(February 25, 2020). You-Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lpy3kMHIHI&li

st=PL1jx2AuNri2MMW9Ye-VoZk1mdiSwVoWx&index=2.

Ciulla, J. B. (2014). Leadership Ethics: Expanding the Territory. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics:

The Heart of Leadership (Third Edition) (pp. 21-59). California: Edward Elgar Publishers

Ltd.

Covey, S. M. R., & Merrill, R. R. (2008). The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes

Everything (Free Press Edition). New York: Free Press.

Covey, S. M. R., & Link, G. (2012). Smart Trust: The Defining Skill that Transforms

Managers into Leaders. New York: Free Press.

Covey, S. M. R., et al. (2022). Trust & Inspire: How Truly Great Leaders Unleash Greatness

in Others. London a. o.: Simon & Schuster.

Covey, S. R. (1993). Spiritual Root of Human Relations (Second Edition). Salt Lake City

(Utah): Deseret Books.

Covey, S. R. (2002). Principle-Centered Leadership. London a.o.: Pocket Books.

Covey, S. R. (2005). The Divine Centre: Why We Need a Life Centred on God and Christ

and How We Attain It. Salt Lake City (Utah): Deseret Books.

Covey, S. R. (2012). The 8

Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. New York, a.o.: Free

Press.

Covey, S. R. (1989/2015). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Kindle Edition). Salt

Lake City (Utah): Mango.

Covey, S. R., Merrill, R. A. & Merrill, R. R. (1994/2002). First Things First: Coping with the

Ever-Increasing Demands of the Workplace. London, a.o.: Pocket Books.

Craig, N., George, B., & Snook, S. (2023). True North Fieldbook, Emerging Leader Edition:

The Emerging Leader’s Guide to Leading Authentically in Today’s Workplace (J-B

Warren Bennis Series). New Jersey: John Wiley.

Dale, B. G. (2003). Managing Quality (Fourth Edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Deming, W. E. (1982/2018). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge a. o.: MIT Press.

Eva, N., et al. (2019). Servant Leadership: A Systematic Review and Call for Future

Research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, pp. 111–132.

Furey, R. J., (1993). The Joy of Kindness. New York: Crossroad.

George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting

Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, B. (2015). Discover Your True North: Becoming an Authentic Leader (Second

Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, B., & Clayton, Z. (2022). True North, Emerging Leader Edition: Leading

Authentically in Today’s Workplace. New Jersey: John Wiley.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977/1991). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate

Power and Greatness. New York, Mahwah: Paulist Press.

Hartman, N. S. & Conklin, T. A. (2014). Ethics and Leadership: The Role of Prevention and

Promotion Oriented Approaches to Leadership. In R. Selladurai & S. Carraher (Eds.),

Servant Leadership: Research and Practice (pp. 182-200). Hershey (PA): InfoSci-

Books.

Hole, G. T. (2014). Understanding Leadership: An Experimental-Experiential Model. Journal

of Inquiry & Action in Education, 5(3), pp. 1-11.

Humphrey, R. H. (2014). Effective Leadership: Theory, Cases and Applications. Los

Angeles a.o.: Sage.

Hunter, J. C. (2004). The World’s Most Powerful Leadership Principle: How to Become a

Servant Leader. New York: Waterbrook Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). Moral Development and Identification. In H. W. Stevenson, (Ed.), Child

Psychology: 62nd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 277-

332). Chicago.

Melé, D. & Cantón, C. G. (2014). Human Foundations of Management: Understanding the

Homo Humanus. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nass, E. (2017). Führungsethik sozialer Marktwirtschaft: Ein systematischer Leitfaden für

eine Mikro-Marko-Perspektive. In: Journal for Markets and Ethics, 5(2), 67-

82. https://doi.org/10.2478/jome-2018-0006.

Nass, E. (2018). Handbuch Führungsethik. Teil I: Systematik und maßgebliche

Denkrichtungen im Überblick (Dynamisch Leben gestalten 7). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Nass, E., & Kreuer, E. (2018). Methodology and Applications of Christian Leadership

Ethics. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 11(2), 1-15. https://scholar.valpo

.edu/jvbl/vol11/iss2/6.

Nass, E. (2023). Christian Social Ethics. New York a.o.: Lowman & Littlefield.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Seventh Edition). California:

Sage.

Oakland, J. S. (1989). The Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving

Performance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

Senge, P. M. (1995). Robert Greenleaf’s Legacy: A New foundation for Twenty-First Century

Institutions. In L. C. Spear (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K.

Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management

Thinkers (pp. 217-240). New York a.o.: John Wiley.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (1999/2014). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication:

Knowledge, Sensitivity, Skills, Values. New York: Longman.

Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1998). The Power of Servant Leadership: Essays by Robert K.

Greenleaf. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Spohn, D. (2008). An Operational Definition of Effective Leadership: Was Covey Right?

Review of Public Administration and Management, 6(2), 1-6. doi:10.4172/2315-

7844.1000251.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462

___________________________________________________________________________

Appendix: List of Abbreviations

AL Authentic Leadership

a.o. And others

EL Ethical Leadership

HO homo oeconomicus

LMX Leader-Manager Exchange

PCL Principle-Centered Leadership

SL Servant Leadership

SMP Scientific Management Paradigm

TL Transformational Leadership

TQ Total Quality

TQM Total Quality Management

VBL – Value-Based Leadership

___________________________________________________________________________

About the Author

Fr. Ezekiel Ifeanyichukwu Oko

Ezekiel Ifeanyichukwu Oko was born on August 3, 1976 in the city of Agbani in Enugu,

Nigeria and grew up as the third of seven children. His desire to become a Catholic priest

led him to the seminary in 1998. In 2010, after twelve years of training, he was ordained

as a Catholic priest for the diocese of Enugu where he served as deputy cathedral

administrator. He completed his bachelor’s degree in theology and philosophy at the

Bigard Memorial Seminary Enugu in Nigeria. In 2016, his bishop sent him to Germany

where he served as a chaplain (subsidiary) in Bad Godesberg for four years, while

concomitantly acquiring his master's degree in philosophy at the University of Bonn. He

further obtained a master’s degree in theology at the Cologne University of Catholic

Theology with a special interest in leadership ethics. Currently, he is supporting the

parishes of Venusberg, Ippendorf, and Poppelsdorf (VIP) as a subsidiary and is

simultaneously attending the Cologne University of Catholic Theology (KHKT), where he is

pursuing his doctorate.

Fr. Ezekiel Ifeanyichukwu Oko can be reached at [email protected].