1 Introductión

Why are some companies socially responsible while others are not? Researchers have devoted considerable time to understanding this dilemma (Walls and Berrone 2015). Efforts, both academic and applied, have tended to focus on corporate governance to explain irresponsibility (Erakoviç and Overall 2010; Filatotchev and Nakajima 2014; Harjoto and Jo 2014; L’Huillier 2014; Merry et al. 2012; Ntim and Soobaroyen 2013; Scherer et al. 2013). Despite governments’ anti-corruption regulations, published codes of conduct, and the popularity of balanced scorecards (Armstrong et al. 2013; Ghobadian et al. 2015) socially irresponsible behaviour remains a persistent problem (Devinney et al. 2013; Global Reporting Initiative2015; Lauesen 2013).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is manifested in the ways a firm expresses its organisational actions and policies to a wide range of stakeholders, not just shareholders. The topic began to appear in the literature in the 1950s (Carroll 1999; Ghobadian et al. 2015; Visser 2010). There are two broad and opposing viewpoints that both define and divide CSR: The stakeholder/normative view and the shareholder/instrumental view. A modern approach to CSR tends to reflect a combination of the two extremes, as leaders make many decisions—strategic, instrumental, or even altruistic at times—depending on the business–society relationship (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Husted and de Jesus Salazar 2006; Lauesen 2013). As a result, we see a great deal of inconsistency in how CSR is displayed in the marketplace, making it a subject of considerable debate (Acquier et al. 2011; Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Bowen 1953; Carroll 1999, 2015; Dahlsrud 2008; Devinney et al. 2013).

While the CSR literature has been relatively silent on the role of business leaders in corporate social responsibility outcomes, some scholars have begun to look at how these leaders make the decisions that shape policies and practices of firms (Witt and Redding 2012). For example, we understand that personal values influence the behaviour of senior leaders but are unsure of the effect values may have on actual decision-making (Adams et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2013; Godos-Diez et al. 2011; O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2014; Pless et al. 2012; Stahl and Sully de Luque 2014). Knowing more about the motivations of senior leaders can help to explain the varying expressions of social responsibility as well as inform ongoing questions about the irresponsible practices of organisations (Eccles et al. 2014; Greenwood and Van Buren III 2010; Ingenhoff and Sommer 2010; Mostovicz et al. 2011). Aguinis and Glavas (2012) put a label on this gap in the literature—a black box.

1.1 CSR and the Role of Senior Corporate Leaders

Consider the following paradox. The business world has made an increasing commitment to CSR, yet corporate leaders have not consistently displayed what many would consider socially responsible behaviour. The variability in interpretation and application of CSR is evident in the examples of irresponsible behaviour (Fleming et al. 2013; Lindgreen and Swaen 2010; Schneider 2014). For example, British Petroleum’s CEO was deeply insensitive to social impacts on local communities during the company’s massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (Lange and Washburn 2012; Sherwell and Lawler 2015). In Canada, Bombardier’s corporate plan to pay out multimillion-dollar bonuses to executives while laying off thousands of employees drew the ire of many taxpayers (Financial Post 2017; Kiladze 2017). Yet both companies had touted their CSR credentials, and prepared annual sustainabilityreports using the respected Global Reporting Index framework (Global Reporting Initiative 2018). Of course, not all senior leaders demonstrate purely instrumental or unethical behaviour. The CEOs of Johnson and Johnson (the makers of Tylenol) and Maple Leaf Foods showed how senior leaders could put the public first and profit second, at least in the short-term (Crossan et al. 2013; Fletcher 2009; Knight 1982; Stevenson 2008).

Since the 2008 financial crisis, with its corporate scandals and unprincipled risk-taking, we have seen a renewed interest in CSR, particularly around notions of transparency and ethical decision-making (Ghobadian et al. 2015; Junaid 2013; Kemper and Martin 2010; Lauesen 2013). The attendant research switched to learning more about the personal characteristics of business leaders and how they make decisions that impact the firm’s performance and culture.

1.2 Responsible Leadership

Scholars have begun to employ new approaches to identify factors that explain responsibility (Pless et al. 2012). For example, research around responsible leadership is attempting to explain the characteristics and motivations of the individual leader (Doh and Quigley 2014; Maak et al. 2016; Pless et al. 2012; Pless and Maak 2011; Stahl and Sully de Luque 2014; Waldman et al. 2011; Voegtlin 2016).

Responsible leadership can be defined as a social-relational and ethical phenomenon that involves a broad-based, stakeholder approach to responsibility (Maak and Pless 2006). There are generally two basic types of responsible leaders in the business world: the integrative leader and the instrumental leader. The leader’s personal perspective—integrative or instrumental—influences the choices and decisions he makes at the strategic level of the firm (Maak et al. 2016; Pless et al. 2012).

Integrative leaders demonstrate a balanced approach to business decisions that reflects moral reasoning, a commitment to engaging legitimate stakeholders to create shared value, and leadership that inspires employees (Doh and Quigley 2014; Hahn et al. 2014; Maak et al. 2016; Pless and Maak 2011; Sully de Luque et al. 2008; Voegtlin et al. 2012). In this context, responsibility is not interpreted as a legal liability, but as part of a social contract that addresses social, financial, and environmental concerns (Pless et al. 2012; Voegtlin 2016; Waldman and Siegel 2008; Waldman et al. 2011). In contrast, instrumental leaders take a narrower approach to responsibility, focusing primarily on the immediate shareholders/owners, or on a limited number of stakeholders. They tend to focus on core business activities to maximise profits and growth, have a transactional vision that includes setting high-performance goals for employees, and pursue CSR for competitive advantage (Pless et al. 2012; Waldman et al. 2011).

1.3 A Leader’s Mindset and the Influence of Personal Values

Scholars are increasing their focus on leaders’ mindsets, examining the characteristics and behaviours of individual leaders (Maak et al. 2016; Pless et al. 2012; Tideman et al. 2013; Voegtlin 2016). A leader’s mindset drives choices that affect business strategy, which in turn influences whether the firm earns a social license to operate (Hockerts 2015; Tideman et al. 2013). Pless et al. (2012) describe a responsible leader in terms of social responsibility, a definition that is foundational for this study. They suggest that an Integrator demonstrates five characteristics: moral motivation, a commitment to shared value creation (i.e. for business and society), ability to balance rationality and emotion, transformational leadership, and meaningful stakeholder engagement (Pless et al. 2012; p. 58). However, missing from this definition is a set of personal values or principles that explain the integrative leader’s motivations (Voegtlin 2016).

Personal values are the strongest predictor of any leader’s behaviour. However, they have not formed part of the definition for the integrative mindset to date (Brandt 2016; Chin et al. 2013; Greenwood and Van Buren 2010; Hambrick 2007; Hambrick and Mason 1984; Voegtlin 2016). We know that senior leaders make values-based decisions that affect social and financial results, but we still need to understand how leaders are motivated to make these decisions (Brandt 2016; Pless et al. 2012; Tideman et al. 2013; Voegtlin 2016). A better understanding of how personal values affect leaders’ behaviour can help to explain displays of responsibility and irresponsibility across organisations (Edelman 2017; Ingenhoff and Sommer 2010; Mostovicz et al. 2011).

1.4 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how social responsibility manifests in some senior leaders’ decisions, and how values-based decisions can explain responsible and irresponsible CSR outcomes (Edelman 2017; Ingenhoff and Sommer 2010; Mostovicz et al. 2011). The literature discusses behavioural characteristics for the responsible leader, but it does not examine how values are involved in the socially responsible leader’s decision-making. By exploring leaders’ decisions through the lens of personal values, we proposed to demonstrate the motivations of responsible leaders, thereby adding a new element to the responsible leadership framework (Carter and Greer 2013; Voegtlin 2016; Waldman and Siegel 2008). We posed the following research questions to inform this area of the research and practice: (1) What are the personal values that motivate responsible leaders; and (2) How do values affect the decisions and actions around social responsibility?

This chapter presents a study that attempts to address a gap in the literature—the often-ignored role of senior leaders in defining the responsible or irresponsible actions of their firms (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Eccles et al. 2014; Klenke 2011; O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2014; Pless et al. 2012). We begin with an overview of the subject area and a review of the literature around CSR, leadership and responsible leadership, and the role of personal values in defining a leader’s behaviour. Next, we outline the theoretical framework, research design, analysis, and findings of the study. We then discuss the findings, including qualified implications for research and practice. We close with appendices that provide further information on the study sample and illustrative quotations from its participants.

2 Theoretical Framework and Research Design

We used a multi-theoretical approach to facilitate a comprehensive response to the organisational and individual complexities within contemporary business environments (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Doh and Quigley 2014; Freeman et al. 2010; Morgeson et al. 2013; Stahl and Sully de Luque 2014). We integrated work from two domains: stakeholder theory and responsible leadership theory. Stakeholder theory puts the focus on the macro environment, i.e., management’s capacity to address multiple and diverse groups of stakeholders (Kemper and Martin 2010). Responsible leadership theory addresses the micro-level factors, i.e., the individual leaders and the personal values that motivate them (Doh and Quigley 2014; Pless et al. 2012; Stahl and Sully de Luque 2014).

Until recently, CSR research has focused primarily on the macro environment—the organisation, sector, or governance structures—and quantitative methodologies (Aguinis and Glavas 2012). We heeded the demand for more qualitative methodologies and more emphasis on the micro-foundations of CSR—the individual actions and interactions within organisations (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Barney and Felin 2013; Bridoux and Stoelhorst 2014; Jones Christensen et al. 2014).

In keeping with this direction, we employed a qualitative multiple-case study research design with an emphasis on individual leaders. Findings from multiple cases are often regarded as being more robust than those from single case studies (Creswell 2014; Yin 2014). Indeed, the case study design provided flexibility and the necessary level of data to develop a thorough understanding of the real-life values and behaviours of the senior leaders in the sample.

Population

The primary population was the index of Top 100 Employers in Canada in 2016; the Regional Top Employer lists were included as a secondary source to ensure a large enough sample. A senior leader was defined as a CEO or a member of the senior leadership team reporting to the CEO; for example, a vice-president (VP). We obtained representation from a variety of sectors and business areas across Canada that would sufficiently reflect the global market environment (Bondy and Starkey 2014; Knudsen and Moon 2013).

The leaders were good candidates for the study because the Top 100 selection criteria included a demonstrated commitment to engagement and community involvement. Our assumption was that these leaders would thus reflect the characteristics and behaviours of Pless et al.’s (2012) Integrator. As previously described, the integrative responsible leader is characterised by high moral standards, stakeholder orientation, and the capacity to build value for the business and the community through collaborative, transformative efforts (Pless et al. 2012).

Sampling

To be eligible for our study, an employer had to represent a large firm (500 or more employees), have national or international scope, and publicly espouse a CSR strategy. After these criteria were applied, the number of eligible participants dropped from 100 candidates to 59.

The revised list of 59 top employers represented a range of sectors, from pharmaceuticals to oil and gas, and thus reflected a diverse group of senior leaders. We confirmed that a population of senior leaders in Canada would sufficiently reflect the global market environment, since an organisation’s location does not appear to be a factor in defining a global company (Bondy and Starkey 2014; Knudsen and Moon 2013). Using a purposive sampling procedure, we secured interviews with 12 senior leaders from across Canada. We interviewed over a five-month period, March to July 2016.

Interview Protocol

The primary researcher identified the CEO for each organisation through the company’s website and contacted the firms via email. Negative responses from more than half of the sample arrived within 3 weeks; many of the remaining candidates had responded positively (i.e., they expressed interest in the study but requested further information). We pursued these employers and all of those who had not yet responded. We exchanged several emails with numerous employers and followed up with telephone calls when appropriate. Within 2 months we had received positive responses from eight Top 100 employers. Frequently, but not always, the leader’s personal assistant was the main contact, setting the date and time for the interview with the primary researcher. The period for interviews was extended from 3 to 5 months to accommodate the busy schedules of the senior leaders who agreed to be interviewed.

Sample Size

There is no absolute standard for sample size in qualitative research; the key is to achieve saturation (Davis 2013; Fusch and Ness 2015; Guest et al. 2006). For example, Guest et al. (2006) determined that data saturation (i.e., evidence of repeating themes) can occur within the first six interviews of a study. For case study research, however, Rowley (2012) specified a sample size between one and ten participants. Fusch and Ness (2015) recommended considering data from both a quality and quantity perspective, and not just the sample size. Based on this advice, we aimed for a sample of 10–12 leaders.

The data were showing some repetition by the eighth interview. Five months into the interview process we were seeing repetitive themes in each of the final four interviews. We chose to close the interview process at 12 interviews because the data demonstrated sufficient quality and quantity to begin the analysis process in earnest (Fusch and Ness 2015). (Table 2, Appendix 1 provides an overview of the 12 leaders in the sample.)

Interviews and Questions

The primary researcher performed all the interviews using the more flexible semi-structured interview process to enable the participants to elaborate on their opinions and experience (Boudville et al. 2013; Gubrium et al. 2012). The questions were open-ended to enable the interviewer to delve deep into the various components under study, leading ultimately to more informed responses (Cooper and Schindler 2014; Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008; Gubrium et al. 2012; Whittemore 2014).

The questions were informed by the literature review, particularly the definition of responsible leadership developed by Maak and Pless (2006), and the characteristics of responsible leaders further explicated by Pless et al. (2012). (A list of key questions and prompts is included as Appendix 2) To avoid bias, the lead investigator submitted the queries and prompts for peer review to ensure they were not leading questions.

The 12 leaders in the sample opted for telephone interviews. This method proved to be satisfactory with participants providing detailed responses, often extending the 30-minute time limit to 45 or more minutes (Rowley 2012). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and returned to each participant to confirm accuracy. All responded with (a) some revisions, or (b) full agreement with the transcription.

2.1 Analysis Framework

We used QSR International’s NVivo (v11) to organise, store, code and manipulate the text data, and display the results of queries in a more manageable way (Bergin 2011; Bridgstock et al. 2010; Petty et al. 2012; Rowley 2012). We also incorporated other qualitative research techniques to ensure a sound research method. For example, methodological triangulation—multiple sources of data—helped to expand on data collected from the interviews. This involved collecting secondary data in the form of company documents from the firms’ websites (e.g., strategies and plans, news releases, and reports), and further documentation voluntarily provided by the individual leaders. As noted previously, member checking verified the researcher’s interpretation of the data, enhancing accuracy and decreasing interview bias (Harper and Cole 2012; Hudson et al. 2014; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Rowley 2012; Stake 1995).

Identifying Integrative Leaders

As a first step in the analysis, we used Pless et al.’s (2012) Integrator characteristics as the gold standard to identify the leadershiporientation of participants. Each leader in the study was assessed using the five Integrator characteristics to determine if she were an integrative leader or not. Once the leader type was determined, we analysed the entire data base. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step thematic analysis process was used to extract a series of themes. This broad assessment informed the second major step in the analysis, identifying and exploring the values.

Identifying Value Dimensions

To determine the values, we used two benchmarks: Rokeach’s (1973) Value Survey (RVS) and a contemporary value set for business leaders developed by Brummette and Zoch (2015). The RVS is cited widely and has relevance for contemporary research; in fact, Brummette and Zoch (2015) used the RVS to develop their scale which was based on what stakeholders believed to be the most socially desirable values for business leaders.

Since value systems have not been empirically identified for any type of responsible leader, we had to design a process for this step in the analysis (Voegtlin 2016). The process was an iterative one that involved working back and forth between the benchmarks, literature, and study findings. This exercise helped to ensure we did not miss any highly relevant values that would be characteristic of an integrative leader. Eventually, we developed a master list of 36 potential values from the various sources, having eliminated duplicate and irrelevant items.

Next, we selected values from the master list that were clearly aligned with each of the characteristics of Pless et al.’s (2012) Integrator. Given the range of values that were available, the multiple terms that could describe one value, and a desire to be efficient, we chose to use value dimensions. By defining a value dimension as a range or degree, we could demonstrate a more objective, measurable interpretation of each one. This approach enabled us to organise the many potential values around a reasonable number of dimensions.

3 Findings

When we applied Pless et al.’s five Integrator characteristics to the Canadian leaders, 11 of the 12 were aligned, albeit to varying degrees, with an integrative mindset. This finding confirmed our choice of top employers for the study. Since the criteria for becoming a top employer in Canada included a capacity for stakeholder engagement and community engagement, the leaders already had demonstrated key characteristics of the Integrator (Jermyn 2014; MediaCorp Canada, Inc. 2016; Pless et al. 2012). However, while we chose this list deliberately, we acknowledge that the 12 leaders who opted into the study may be a self-selected subgroup of top employers. Still, as accredited top employers, they should be similar to the others on the Top 100 list.

The alignment between the characteristics typical of the Integrator and those of the 11 leaders was not perfect, however. While our leaders did indeed demonstrate integrative characteristics, they also displayed a tendency to be competitive, a quality more often associated with the instrumental leader (Maak et al. 2016; Pless et al. 2012; Waldman et al. 2011). That being said, competition to some extent is likely to be a motivating factor in any senior leader’s corporate decisions (Christ et al. 2017; Frynas and Yamahaki  2016; Porter and Kramer 2011; Wang et al. 2016). Indeed, we suggest that not being competitive in a modern business environment will most assuredly limit a leader’s effectiveness and reduce options for promotion.

After again reviewing the literature, we concluded that our view of competition as dichotomous might not be appropriate. As Doerfel and Taylor (2004) suggest, one’s level of competitiveness can be viewed along a spectrum anchored by co-operation at one end and competition at the other, with the concept of “co-opetition” near the middle. Co-opetition occurs when two competing organisations work together for mutual benefits (Emec et al. 2015). They typically co-operate in such areas as efficiency (e.g., sharing trucks to ship goods to market, or streamlining the supply chain), but compete around brand and market share (Christ et al. 2017; Limoubpratum et al. 2015). If we look at competition through this lens, then leaders demonstrating competitive characteristics need not be excluded from the Integrator category.

Since the 11 Canadian leaders were similar but not identical to Pless et al.’s (2012) Integrator, we labelled them pragmatic integrative leaders. We use this term when we discuss the 11 participants in the study; otherwise we use the two terms, Integrator or integrative leader. (Appendix 1 includes illustrative quotations from the Canadian leaders that demonstrate this pragmatic integrative mindset.) The 12th leader was clearly different from the 11 and more appropriately characterised as an instrumental leader, as described by Maak et al. (2016). The instrumental leader was analysed to confirm the characteristic mindset but excluded from the remainder of the analysis.

3.1 Defining the Final Value Dimensions

The 12 value dimensions that distinguish the pragmatic integrative leader as a unique leadership style are presented in Fig. 1 (O’Toole 2012; Voegtlin 2016). Through the iterative analysis process, we identified seven intrinsic value dimensions and five extrinsic value dimensions (Table 1).

Fig. 1
An illustration depicts five integrator characteristics that generate five features of pragmatic integrative value dimensions.

Integrative Characteristics and Proposed Value Dimensions Note. Integrator characteristics used with permission and adapted from “Different Approaches Toward Doing the Right Thing: Mapping the Responsibility Orientations of Leaders,” by N.M. Pless, T. Maak, & D.A. Waldman (2012), Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, p. 58. Copyright 2012 by the Academy of Management

Full size image
Table 1 Twelve proposed value dimensions
Full size table

The one value dimension that separates our leaders from the Integrator is competition–co-opetition. Figure 1 includes this value dimension as one of the integrative characteristics that involves creating value for business and society. Following are the definitions for each value dimension along with illustrative quotations from the leaders in the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors.

Intrinsic Value Dimensions

The following value dimensions help to define the intrinsic motivation of the pragmatic integrative leader. Notably, while the competition–co-opetition dimension distinguishes the pragmatic integrative leader from the Integrator, the two are very similar on other dimensions. This suggests that competitiveness is merely an extension of Pless et al.’s Integrator mindset.

Responsibility–Accountability

Responsibility does not appear in the value sets of any other relevant leadership style, yet almost by definition, it is the essence of an integrative leader (Owen 2012; Voegtlin 2016). For such leaders, responsibility is broader, proactive, and not simply one person’s liability, as in the legal sense of the word (Pless et al. 2012; Voegtlin 2016; Waldman and Siegel 2008; Waldman et al. 2011). Rather than focusing only on financial outcomes, he works with stakeholders to balance social, economic, and environmental interests. Being accountable facilitates openness and transparency, public proof of responsible activity. The accountable leader proactively communicates his actions and decisions to stakeholders and the public, not waiting for questions or accusations (Voegtlin 2016).

The CEO of a recreational retail co-operative (co-op) in the not-for-profit sector revealed the responsibility–accountability value dimension when he described how sustainability was implemented within his organisation, “This approach [to sustainability/social responsibility] is deeply embedded in the operational functions of the organisation and into the day-to-day roles of the organisation” (NFP-Co-op-Rtl). The senior leader within the public sector who was responsible for CSR showed responsibility–accountability with the following comment, “[Social responsibility] is our obligation to society to do that job in a way that builds public trust” (PS-Fin-CSR). In the private sector, the VP representing transportation showed responsibility–accountability when she said, “I don’t think you can be a successful company today… and ignore your responsibility towards sustainability” (Pri-Tran-1).

Forward-Thinking–Long-termism

Scholars have criticised business for not being forward-thinking, and for causing social, environmental, and economic problems for society while prospering at the expense of communities (Pearce et al. 2014; Porter and Kramer 2011; Voegtlin 2016). The forward-looking perspective is a strategic departure from the short-termism that has led to a singular focus on financial gains on a quarterly basis, or not thinking ahead to consider the impacts of certain decisions on society or the environment (Maak et al. 2016; Sethi et al. 2015; Voegtlin 2016). The leader takes a longer-term perspective to enable the development of stakeholder relationships, trust, and the achievement of outcomes (Doh and Quigley 2014; Lin-Hi and Blumberg 2011; Maak and Pless 2006; Maak et al. 2016; O’Riordan and Fairbrass 2014; Tien et al. 2013).

The natural resources CEO showed private sector forward-thinking when he spoke about how the company was growing and how he wanted to ensure the values of the original owners were maintained, “The challenge for us as the company has grown is to make a big company still feel small” (Pri-NR). His long-term approach was demonstrated when he talked about the changes happening in the industry and how the company needed to adapt, “We’re in a digital world and we have to change; we have to adapt. Employees want different things today… . The skillsets we need in our mills are completely different” (Pri-NR).

A senior partner within the consulting industry demonstrated forward-thinking when he questioned whether or not the organisation was incenting the right behaviours in employees to create a better, more sustainable workplace, “Are we incenting the right behaviours? Are we leading organisations in a way that truly drives us to a better place?” (Pri-CS-1). His belief in a long-term approach to management was articulated in his criticism of the financial crisis, “The financial crisis of 2007–2008 is an example of short-term thinking, self-interest, ego, leading to the ultimate demise of many organisations or a massive impact on the personal wealth of many of our citizens” (Pri-CS-1).

In the public sector, the VP of Human Resources described the organisation’s long-term approach to employee engagement, “We can see this very strong correlation between engagement, high client satisfaction, and results/organisational success… Turnover goes down, so your retention levels go up, and being able to attract quality talent improves over time” (PS-Fin-HR).

Integrity–Trustworthiness

The integrative leader demonstrates consistent words and actions, honours commitments, and strives to be honest, ethical, and moral (Maak et al. 2016). In return, the leader garners trust from stakeholders and builds sustainable relationships (Mostovicz et al. 2011; Veríssimo and Lacerda 2015). Other leaders, especially ethical leaders, share this value, yet it is particularly necessary for the integrative leader who must be able to garner the trust of so many and varied stakeholders (Yasir and Mohamad 2016).

The CEO of the not-for-profit co-op showed integrity with his comments about his role in the organisation, “I really believe that the organisation takes on a tone from the top. I believe you have to mirror or model the behaviour you want to see from your organisation” (NFP-Co-op-Rtl). In the private sector, the VP representing the transportation area showed integrity when she stated, “We carry the flag and the country’s name as part of our name… . Sustainability for us means being mindful of all these expectations and governing ourselves accordingly” (Pri-Tran-1).

Competition–Co-opetition

The original designers of the Integrator persona (Pless et al. 2012) saw competitiveness as belonging more appropriately to the instrumental leader. However, we find this value dimension in nearly every instance of the leaders we interviewed. Creating value for business and society requires a leader who can do double time in achieving financial and social outcomes that satisfy a diverse set of stakeholders, including the shareholders to whom she is directly accountable. The notion of co-opetition adds nuance to the competitive value dimension and demonstrates the pragmatic integrative leader’s capacity to work with others—including the competition—to achieve organisational goals.

As noted earlier, co-opetition is the process of two competing organisations working together for mutual benefits (Emec et al. 2015). There are four main strategies for adopting co-opetition: risk reduction, greater efficiencies, social branding, and the creation of new markets (Christ et al. 2017). In practice, companies tend to see more potential in process-oriented opportunities, like risk management and efficiency, while brand and market share tend to remain in the competitive arena. For example, the transportation leader described how the company worked with industry competitors and government to improve national standards, “We can’t do it on our own. We work very actively with [international associations] and… [industry] committees… . We share the goals of where we want to be on carbon emissions” (Pri-Tran-1).

Yet, there was a strong element of competitiveness, particularly in the private sector. The natural resources CEO cared about employees, valued employee engagement, and was prepared to spend considerable time ensuring employees had the best experience possible, “I spend a lot of time worrying about our employees… Until everybody in this company is fully engaged, I don’t think we’re doing our jobs” (Pri-NR). At the same time, he believed that engagement should lead to better performance and higher profits, “If we do [engagement] well, our employees will be engaged and… we could operate 2–3% better than our competitors” (Pri-NR). His comments may suggest instrumentalism, but the compassion he showed for employees reaffirmed the employee engagement literature which states that a caring leader goes beyond a classic means-to-an-end approach (Houghton et al. 2015; Mirvis 2012).

While competition was not the same or as intense in the not-for-profit or public sectors, the leaders still encountered some form of it. In the not-for-profit sector, the CEO of the retail co-op talked about staying competitive with other companies involved in the same retail field, leading in specific areas of strength, and continuing to grow the business for the benefit of the owners, “If you want to improve the efficiency and impact of everything you do it has to be at the coal face. We’re very proud of what we do on this front… . We’re definitely a leader in many of these things” (NFP-Coop-Rtl). Noteworthy was how this organisation co-operated with others to achieve certain goals, like reducing environmentalimpacts, “We also collaborate very, very actively behind the scenes… A lot of what we get done is through collaborations… . The more people, organisations, and money chasing a solution, the more likely it is to affect change” (NFP-Coop-Rtl).

The leadership literature provides some support for including the competition–co-opetition dimension within an integrative leader’s value set. Scholars have noted that all leaders encounter competition and there is no exception for those who practice CSR (Christ et al. 2017; Frynas and Yamahaki 2016; Porter and Kramer 2011; Wang et al. 2016). In fact, leaders working in global contexts are subject to even higher levels of competition (Caligiuri and Tarique 2009; Javidan et al. 2016; Porter and Kramer 2011).

Clear-Eyed–Pragmatism

Balancing rationality with emotions requires a leader who is comfortable and adept at complexity, ambiguity, and paradoxes. The leader must see through stakeholders’ interests and demands and determine the best solution. Being clear-eyed reduces bias and introduces a critical thinking approach to complex problems. Responding to a question about his organisation’s stakeholder engagement process, the CEO of the retail co-op responded, “As long as you are pragmatic about it and you understand exactly how stakeholders drive your business, it is not unwieldy. But you have to be clear-eyed about which stakeholders have the veto” (NFP-Co-op-Rtl).

Balancing stakeholder and shareholder interests requires a deep intellectual base and sound reasoning that makes sense of paradox while being pragmatic and efficient (Baker and Schaltegger 2015; de Colle et al. 2014; Mazutis and Slawinski 2015). Pragmatism enables the leader to implement a sensible and reasonable decision or policy based on a sound understanding of the practical needs of each group. The same CEO demonstrated pragmatism in a comment about the ambiguity involved in doing business today, “For leaders today you have to be able to live in a state of ambiguity” (NFP-Coop-Rtl).

One of two senior partners in the consulting industry was clear-eyed and pragmatic when he discussed social responsibility in the private sector, “You can’t just talk about [social responsibility] and hope… If it’s important you have to have some discipline… Ideally, you make it part of the culture of the organisation” (Pri-CS-2).

Self-reflective–Critical Thinking

The integrative leader knows her strengths and weaknesses, and constantly evaluates her behaviour and impact on others. The leader understands her assumptions, what she believes in, and why (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008). Being self-reflective prepares the leader for the times when her values and beliefs are challenged (e.g., the discovery of corruption or human rights violations within the company). Taking a critical approach is essential for the leader who works with many competing stakeholder interests, evaluates complex problems, or oversees major change.

The transportation VP was self-reflective and showed her capacity as a critical thinker when she summed up her thoughts at the end of the interview:

I think this company has the right values… . Our platform of engaging employees is in the right direction. There is room for progress, for sure. Our employees are starting to trust us, but we are still very much under probation… . It makes us work harder. (Pri-Tran-1).

The health services VP (public sector) embodied this dimension when she spoke about how her senior team was working to understand trust:

If we say an organisation has a particular value, we have to examine every decision we make, every action we take, every behaviour we exemplify, and make sure that it is actually consistent with that value. That’s how people trust you. (PS-HltSvs).

Competence–Excellence

This value dimension supports the leader’s desire to create long-term value for business and society. The competent leader strives for excellence in decision-making and ensures that costs are aligned with value. Stakeholders must have confidence in the leader’s capacity to represent the organisation and move it forward in the best possible way. The leader demonstrates an appropriate level of knowledge with the operations of the firm, the sector, and other relevant areas (Kouzes and Posner 2017). All good leaders require a level of competence that enables success and there is no exception for the socially responsible leader (Yasir and Mohamad 2016).

The natural resources CEO demonstrated competence–excellence when he described the company’s success in hard economic times, “We went through a major economic and housing crisis in our industry and our company emerged financially stronger than we went into it” (Pri-NR).

Representing the public sector, the health services VP showed competence–excellence when she described how she needed to be creative within the constraints of government systems and regulations, “One of the things we’re looking at here is how to change things within certain hard constraints… There are some hard and fast standards and guidelines… But within that structure, we need to know the extent of creativity and flexibility we can offer people” (PS-HltSvs).

Extrinsic Value Dimensions

The next five value dimensions we describe reflect a pragmatic integrative leader’s capacity to communicate and collaborate with stakeholders, setting the leader apart from the typically individualistic focus of other leaders (Maak 2007; Maak et al. 2016; Pless and Maak 2011; Pless et al. 2012; Voegtlin 2011).

Caring–Empathy

The leader demonstratescaring through actions, including compassion, kindness, and empathy. For example, employee engagement processes, when done well, demonstrate that the leader cares about employees, as opposed to seeing them as a means-to-an-end (Houghton et al. 2015; Mirvis 2012). Voegtlin (2016) and Pless and Maak (2011) emphasised the importance of caring in their responsible leader archetype.

One of the best examples of caring–empathy in the private sector was when the transportation VP spoke of her work with the company’s foundation, “The work that we do in the community… is so important. We don’t look at putting our energies where we will get the greatest visibility; we look at putting our energies and resources where they will make the most difference” (Pri-Tran-1).

Caring and empathy were evident in the health services VP with her account of a new program model, “We were asked to develop and establish a new comprehensive model of care for transgender individuals… Our steering committee… had over 50 percent transgender individuals… to make sure their lived experience drove the creation of the model” (PS-HltSvs).

The VP representing applied research in the not-for-profit sector defined a good leader as empathetic, “Really good leaders are able to understand others, empathise, and keep an energy about their own direction that doesn’t mean they abandon themselves” (NFP-ApRes).

Fairness–Balance

The business–society dichotomy is central to the integrative leader, requiring him to be fair, and apply both rational and emotional sensibilities in the right balance (Maak et al. 2016; Pless et al. 2012). The leader weighs all sides and reaches the optimum solution for a given problem, integrating requisite amounts of his Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Emotional Quotient (EQ). Given a broader sense of accountability, the leader works to balance multiple interests (Pless et al. 2012).

The VP representing a large financial services co-op spoke directly about the fairness and balancing required when a company internalises sustainable development, “When we talk about sustainable development… it’s not about treating the three values in a different way; we try to balance all three of them” (NFP-FinSvs). The former dean who also represented the not-for-profit sector, described a management approach that was fair and balanced, “If I’m asking people to be circumspect about managing the budget and I’m not circumspect about managing my own travel expenses, that breaks down trust… . You don’t set one set of standards for yourself and another for your employees” (NFP-Acad).

The private sector VP representing transportation also demonstrated fairness and balance when she described employee engagement, “You owe [employees] transparentcommunication, conversations, frank discussions when things are not going well, and you need to recognise when they do good work and reward them for that. You need to be fair” (Pri-Tran-1). A further demonstration of her ability to balance rationality and emotion came through with the following statement, “Engaged employees understand and buy into the company’s mission and objectives… [but]… there has to be something in it for the employee to be engaged” (Pri-Tran-1).

Inspirational–Empowerment

Pless et al. (2012) saw the integrative leader’s approach as going beyond social responsiveness and integrating social issues into the business operations. Integrative leaders are often viewed as visionary and inspire others with hope, a distinct difference from a more transactional leader (Sully de Luque et al. 2008). Empowerment is considered a key component of the leader’s mindset (Patzer et al. 2012; Pless and Maak 2011; Pless et al. 2012).

The health services VP demonstrated a leadership style that was inspirational and empowering when she spoke about the need to transform the current hierarchical structure of management today, “In a very networked, global economy and if you think about information flow, the whole old-fashioned notion of top-down hierarchy… is really dead” (PS-HltSvs). Another public sector VP in the financial area spoke as an inspirational leader who understood the nature of empowerment when she reminisced about her work in various global companies, “I’ve worked for large, global organisations with 35,000 employees and in many countries… . At the end of the day, it’s the one-on-one connection [with employees] that really is the most impactful for our people” (PS-Fin-HR).

One of the senior partners in the consulting industry described a new inspirational approach to leading and empowering others to be better leaders, “When I launched our revitalised leadership development [program]… it was intended to start to change how we really think about leadership … . We… make it about three big stages: leading self first, leading others second, and leading the business third. (Pri-CS-1).

Respectful–Humility

The leader treats staff, external stakeholders, and others as important, ensures good benefitprograms for employees, and is courteous (Brummette and Zoch 2015). Pless et al. (2012) described their Integrator as one who focuses on all legitimate stakeholders. A CEO’s humility is related to firm performance: Humble leaders build integrative senior management teams that are more likely to collaborate, share information, make joint decisions, and hold a shared vision (Ou et al. 2015).

The private sector natural resources CEO spoke to the importance of respect and showed a convincing humility in how he expected to be treated as the CEO, “I don’t want to be treated any differently today than when I was 20 years old. I don’t feel any different and I have a view that people want to be treated with respect and that their values are important” (Pri-NR).

The VP of the financial services co-op was respectful of stakeholders, “For me, engagement is a kind of promise that you give to someone—your people, your clients… . When you promise something, you put all your energy into keeping that promise” (NFP-Coop-FinSvs). She showed humility in her approach to setting priorities with stakeholders, “We asked our members and clients to help us to prioritise our CSR priorities… . We had 5,000 people answer the questionnaire and the results… indicated we were on the right path” (NFP-Coop-FinSvs).

Inclusiveness–Collaboration

An important reality for the integrative leader is that he is under pressure to work with greater diversity, competing stakeholder interests, and more intense competition, uncertainty and ambiguity than ever before (Gregersen et al. 1998; Maak et al. 2016; PricewaterhouseCoopers 2016). The integrative leader works with groups to build consensus, and considers different ideas, cultures, and stakeholder groups. He collaborates with stakeholders to create shared value (Pless et al. 2012).

The health services VP was inclusive in her approach to engagement, “We’re trying to reach out in different ways… . Twice a year we bring 500 of our leaders to an all-day forum. We’re using a lot of online platforms… . Our CEO has started to do bi-monthly town halls” (PS-HltSvs). She also collaborated with regional authorities and partners, “We do a lot of external engagement with the regional authorities who we work in partnership with.” She also saw collaboration as a necessary value for success, “Partnership, collaboration, and cross-functional work is much more the type of values and characteristics that are required to be successful today” (Pub-HltSvs).

Inclusiveness was evident when one of the senior consultants in the private sector referred to his company’s senior leadership table, “Getting different people’s thoughts and ideas on the table is one way of getting much better diversity in our leadership ranks and is really critical. It is a strategic imperative” (Pri-CS-2). He valued collaboration at the senior table and in the company, “In a partnership I have many people around me I can rely on for input, but there are very few solutions that are all me… . It’s about including other people’s opinions and drawing on the spirit of partnership” (Pri-CS-2).

4 Discussion

The underlying assumption of this study was that while there is a tendency to ignore individual leaders in the CSR literature, they play a significant role in the social responsibility outcomes of their organisations. We sought to investigate this research gap by trying to understand a socially responsible leader’s mindset and the motivations behind her decisions. The purpose of the study was to identify and explore the values that motivate a leader to be socially responsible.

By focusing on the practices and motivations of the integrative leader (a subset of the responsible leader genre), we gained a deeper understanding of what traits motivated these leaders to make socially responsible decisions in their organisations. We devised a list of value dimensions that align with integrative leader characteristics; these dimensions are informed both by multiple literatures and findings from the study. In doing so, we noted that our leaders demonstrated some anomalous characteristics that did not align with the current conceptualisation of the integrative leader.

The leaders in our study demonstrated integrative characteristics but were not true Integrators according to the current literature (Pless et al. 2012). The difference between the two groups is that those in our study were also committed to maintain the competitiveness of their organisations. While the instrumental leader develops a competitive advantage through his social responsibility strategy (the enlightened self-interest approach), our leaders embraced social responsibility as a personal commitment. Their more internalised understanding of social responsibility meant that any socially responsible initiatives they undertook were linked to personal values rather than a corporate program (Hemingway and Maclagan 2004). The competitiveness they demonstrated was simply part of their overall management approach. In essence, the pragmatic integrative leader managed to straddle two responsible leader mindsets, the integrative and instrumental, promoting social responsibility and competing successfully in the corporate world. We captured this quality through the competition–co-opetition value dimension.

5 Limitations, Potential Contributions, and Future Developments

Limitations

The fact that small sample sizes may limit the potential to generalise does not negate the usefulness of qualitative studies (Ali and Yusof 2011; Yin 2014). Our sample of leaders reflects an elite group of senior leaders of large corporations, as well as public sector and not-for-profit organisations throughout Canada. Unlike studies that refer to published speeches, written content, and pre-recorded interviews, our data collection process was dynamic, personal, and unrehearsed. The interviewees were confident, self-aware, and articulate. They understood the confidentiality of the study and were comfortable in providing candid responses, with no attempts to inflate positions or opinion. Because these leaders chose to be interviewed, there may be some self-selection bias. However, the sample is a subset of the top employers in Canada in 2016 so they should reflect many of the characteristics and qualities of the larger group.

Potential Contributions to Research and Business Practice

By identifying an introductory framework of value dimensions for the leaders in the study, we suggest a component that has been missing within the responsible leadership literature (Voegtlin 2016; Witt and Stahl 2016). In doing so we have advanced research around the little-known interface of leaders’ personal values and decisions on social responsibility policies and programs (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Pearce et al. 2014). Opportunities for future research could include testing the dimensions for conceptual and statistical independence and validating them against other external measures (Hofstede 2011).

In terms of business practice, we have contributed to a deeper understanding of how leaders with integrative characteristics and values perform in a contemporary business environment (Jones Christensen et al. 2014; Mostovicz et al. 2011; Pless et al. 2012). There may be little evidence of leaders being hired for their values, but perhaps we should consider doing so. Corporate leaders who take many risks, have questionable integrity, and are generally less charitable reduce shareholder wealth in the longer term (Chin et al. 2013; Omar et al. 2017). Our findings suggest firms could benefit by incorporating values in their recruitment processes, especially when filling senior management posts. New research could focus on developing a values assessment scale for leaders and on improving measures to assess leadership performance.

Potential Contributions to the Responsible Leadership Framework

A leader who espouses these value dimensions is socially responsible yet performs well in a competitive environment. The pragmatic integrative leader facilitates the connection between organisations and CSR because she is naturally committed to a broad form of responsibility that includes environmental, financial, and social concerns. The expression of social responsibility is personal, and she models behaviours that support a culture of social responsibility (MacNeil 2018).

At the same time, the leader employs competitive strategies to operate successfully in contemporary corporate environments. Indeed, this leader can straddle two mindsets, integrative and instrumental, within the responsible leadership framework described in the literature (Pless et al. 2012). Our research includes a value dimension that is specific to the pragmatic integrative leader, competition-co-opetition.

Contributions to Organisational Change

The dominant leadership style of corporate leaders typically involves efficiency, calculability, and measurable results, but little regard for others or building lasting inter-personal relationships (Maak et al. 2016; Pless et al. 2012; Tolofari 2005; Waldman et al. 2011). Various leaders have disappointed the world with their displays of individualism, corruption, elitism, and hubris (Schwab and Larkin 2015; Owen 2012). A different type of leadership could restore trust in our institutions and leaders (Edelman 2017; Fifka and Berg 2014; Schwab and Larkin 2015; Patzer et al. 2018; Witt and Stahl 2016).

Our proposed value dimensions reflect a leader who can offer genuine change not only in the corporate world, but also in society. Scholars and thought leaders have warned that we are experiencing a leadership crisis. We need a different type of leadership based on personal values (Edelman 2017; Kouzes and Posner 2017; Owen 2012; PricewaterhouseCoopers 2016; Ree 2014; Waldman and Balven 2014; World Economic Forum 2014). For example, the World Economic Forum (2014) suggests that global leaders must exemplify morality, empathy, courage, long-term perspective, a pragmatic planning approach, strong communications skills, collaboration, and an emphasis on social justice over financial growth (Sarid 2016; Strand 2011; World Economic Forum 2014). These features bear a striking resemblance to the value dimensions proposed in our study.

6 Conclusion

We explored an area of the research less examined—the personal values that influence leaders’ commitment to responsible management (Eccles et al. 2014; Greenwood and Van Buren III 2010). It adds to the body of leadership research, which generally highlights the social and environmental responsibility of organisations, as opposed to the individual leaders of those organisations (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Crane et al. 2008; Jones Christensen et al. 2014; Scherer and Palazzo 2007; Waldman and Siegel 2008). Indeed, focusing on senior leaders is a way to gain insight into what some scholars have termed the black box of leadership and social responsibility (Aguinis and Glavas 2012; Gehman et al. 2013; Maak et al. 2016).

While researchers have studied leadership and CSR for decades, there is little known about how leaders’ personal values motivate their organisations’ social responsibility activities (Cots 2011; Pearce et al. 2014; Witt and Stahl 2016). We know that personal values affect the attitudes, behaviours, and decision-making of leaders, but we don’t know how these values influence decisions (Burton and Goldsby 2009; Jones 2015). This study builds on extant research by describing some value dimensions that characterise pragmatic integrative leaders in Canadian organisations. These leaders demonstrated how a combination of integrative and instrumental characteristics and motivations can be an effective form of responsible leadership in a capitalist-centric marketplace.

Corporations have tremendous power to address social challenges and influence a more inclusive, sustainable, global society (Maak et al. 2016; Owen 2012; Stahl and Sully de Luque 2014; Terrell and Rosenbusch 2013; Williams 2014). The pragmatic integrative leader combines the qualities recommended for global leadership with a practical approach to competing effectively in the corporate world.