دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی رهبری اخلاقی و قضاوت اخلاقی پیروان: نقش پاسخگویی و خود-رهبری دریافت شده (یا مشاهده شده) پیروان به همراه ترجمه فارسی
|عنوان فارسی مقاله:||رهبری اخلاقی و قضاوت اخلاقی پیروان: نقش پاسخگویی و خود-رهبری دریافت شده (یا مشاهده شده) پیروان|
|عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:||Ethical Leadership and Followers’ Moral Judgment: The Role of Followers’ Perceived Accountability and Self-leadership|
|رشته های مرتبط:||مدیریت، مدیریت استراتژیک، تحقیق در عملیات و مدیریت منابع انسانی|
|فرمت مقالات رایگان||مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند|
|کیفیت ترجمه||کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله خوب میباشد|
|توضیحات||ترجمه قسمتهای پایانی مقاله موجود نیست.|
|نشریه||اسپرینگر – Springer|
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان
|دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
ترجمه فارسی رایگان
|دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله|
|جستجوی ترجمه مقالات||جستجوی ترجمه مقالات مدیریت|
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله:
چکیده: یک مدل دو مرحلهای ایجاد و برای توضیح چگونگی ارتباط رهبری اخلاقی با قضاوت اخلاقی پیروان (یا مطیعان) در یک زمینهی سازمانی آزموده شد. با توجه به نظریهی یادگیری اجتماعی، رهبری اخلاقی برای ترویج خود-رهبری پیروان با تمرکز بر اخلاق، در نظر گرفته شد. مشخص شد که دریافت (یا ادراک) پاسخگویی (یا مسعولیت) پیروان برای این رابطه کاملا لازم است. در مرحلهی دوم، رابطهی بین خود-رهبری متمرکز بر اخلاق و قضاوت اخلاقی در سیستم تصمیمگیری دوگانه شرح داده شده و مورد آزمون قرار گرفت. خود-رهبری متمرکز بر اخلاق تنها زمانی با قضاوت اخلاقی در ارتباط بود که پیروان از قضاوت فعال در تضاد با شهود خود استفاده کنند. این، این پشتیبانی را فراهم میکند که یک برنامهی (یا کاربرد) آگاهانه از خود-رهبری متمرکز بر اخلاق منجر به قضاوت اخلاقی بالاتری (یا قویتری) میشود. مفاهیم نظری و عملی و همچنین فرصتهای پژوهشی آینده بحث میشوند.
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
A two stage model was developed and tested to explain how ethical leadership relates to followers’ ethical judgment in an organizational context. Drawing on social learning theory, ethical leadership was hypothesized to promote followers’ self-leadership focused on ethics. It was found that followers’ perceived accountability fully accounts for this relationship. In stage two, the relationship between self-leadership focused on ethics and moral judgment in a dual decision-making system was described and tested. Self-leadership focused on ethics was only related to moral judgment when followers use active judgment as opposed to their intuition. This provides support that a deliberate application of self-leadership focused on ethics leads to higher moral judgment. Theoretical and practical implications as well as future research opportunities are discussed.Abstract A two stage model was developed and tested to explain how ethical leadership relates to followers’ ethical judgment in an organizational context. Drawing on social learning theory, ethical leadership was hypothesized to promote followers’ self-leadership focused on ethics. It was found that followers’ perceived accountability fully accounts for this relationship. In stage two, the relationship between self-leadership focused on ethics and moral judgment in a dual decision-making system was described and tested. Self-leadership focused on ethics was only related to moral judgment when followers use active judgment as opposed to their intuition. This provides support that a deliberate application of self-leadership focused on ethics leads to higher moral judgment. Theoretical and practical implications as well as future research opportunities are discussed.
The 1970s were dominated by bribery scandals, the 1980s had defense industry scandals, and in the late 1990s and early 2000’s accounting scandals dictated the media. For almost 20 years, the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines have encouraged organizations to develop compliance and ethics1 programs (Izraeli and Schwartz 1998). While more rules and regulations (e.g., Sarbanes–Oxley) have been introduced, unethical behavior in organizations still occurs. In 2009, Bernhard Madoff admitted that he defrauded several thousand investors of billions of dollars with what is now known as the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. In 2012, R. Allen Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison for swindling investors out of billions of dollars with his own masterminded Ponzi scheme (Holzer 2012). In addition, Laura Pendergest Holt, Stanford’s chief investment officer, was sentenced to 3 years in prison for obstructing Federal investigations of the company (Lozano 2012). These and other scandals were caused by a single business leader who harmed client investors and those who worked with him or her. Ethical-leadership theory accounts for how business leaders’ ethical behavior influences followers’ ethical decisions and actions (Brown and Trevin˜o 2006). According to the theory, leaders influence followers’ ethical decisions and actions through social learning processes, communicating the importance of ethical standards, social exchange processes, and using performance management systems to make employees accountable for their conduct (Brown and Trevin˜o 2006). Research has demonstrated that ethical-leadership trickles down to affect followers deviant behavior and that ethical climate mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and follower misconduct (Mayer et al. 2009, 2011). Our study extends research on the theorized processes linking ethical leadership to follower ethical conduct in two ways. First, we investigate followers’ perceived accountability as a linking mechanism between ethical leadership and follower selfleadership focused on ethics. We argue that follower selfleadership focused on ethics is a behavioral manifestation of followers’ perceived accountability and social learning processes, which are theorized to explain how ethical leadership influences followers’ ethical conduct (Neck and Houghton 2006; Neck and Manz 2010; Stewart et al. 2011; VanSandt and Neck 2003). Second, our study investigates the relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ ethical decisions. Brown and Trevin˜o (2006) propose that ethical leadership influences followers’ ethical decision-making but do not elaborate on the decision processes followers engage to make ethical decisions. Scholars from various disciplines have developed several ethical decision-making models that attempt to explain the process individuals use to arrive at ethical behavior. The majority of ethical decision-making models utilize Rest’s (1979, 1986) four stages of awareness, judgment, intentions, and behavior. These rationalist models focus solely on moral reasoning. However, studies show that this process might be biased and motivated to produce post hoc justification for actions already taken (Haidt 2001; Kuhn 1991; Perkins et al. 1991). In addition, the four stage model does not account for reflexive ethical behavior which is especially important in unstructured or uncertain situations (Greenwald et al. 2009). Based on these two distinct cognitive processes, Reynolds (2006a) uses a neurocognitive model to explain how individuals make ethical decisions. His model is supported by studies in the area of cognitive psychology and neuroscience that provide evidence that the brain consists of several information processing systems and any behavior is a result of collaboration between these systems (Barbey and Sloman 2007). Even though scholars only recently discovered the dual system approach, it appears to naturally fit observations of intuitive and deliberate human behavior (Rustichini 2008). Recognizing that decision-making includes reflexive and active processes, our study examines how followers’ intuitive and deliberative decision-making processes affect the relationship between ethical leadership and followers’ ethical judgments. Our findings should contribute to ethicalleadership theory by increasing understanding of how ethical leadership influences followers’ ethical judgments and decision-making.