BEQ authors and NACD Leading The Way initiative

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To:
Sent: 11/23/2013 9:36:03 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: BEQ authors and NACD Leading The Way initiative
Dear Professors,
I wish to refer you to this email I have sent to the National Association of Corporate Directors, regarding its Leading The Way national initiative to restore public and investor confidence.
I have no idea what input the Initiative has had from the ethics and compliance community. I have no idea what input anyone in the ethics and compliance community has offered or would desire to offer to the National Association of Corporate Directors concerning its Initiative.
If there is no interface between the NACD and the ethics and compliance community, I don't think it is untoward to suggest that there should be interface.
If any of you would care to support me in pushing for such interface, please email me and we can try to figure out what we can do.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Birmingham, AL

BEQ authors re deterrence in Citigroup of BofA cases

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To:
Sent: 4/2/2013 4:41:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Update to BEQ authors re deterrence in Citigroup and Bank of America cases
Dear Professors,
I wish to provide you with an update to my November 4, 2012 email to you, in which I solicited citations of academic articles on the subject of the relative effectiveness of entity liability, versus individual officer and employee liability, for purposes of deterring corporate wrongdoing. The reason for my request was to be able to provide the articles to the Court as part of my amicus curiae objection in this Bank of America Securities Litigation pending in the Southern District of New York.
Since then, my objection has been extended to a similar class action lawsuit involving Citigroup, also pending in the Southern District of New York (link Citigroup Securities Litigation).
I wish to report that there may be forthcoming some judicial consideration of this deterrence issue in these cases.
In particular, in the Citigroup case, former United States District Court Judge Layn R. Phillips submitted to the Court this Declaration Regarding Approval Of Settlement. I sent an email to Mr. Phillips inquiring of him whether the parties made argument to him about whether the lawsuit had a deterrence value. Mr. Phillips replied that I should serve my email on the parties to give them an opportunity to comment, and then Mr. Phillips would respond. For further information about this, go here.
I do not know where academic research and publication currently stand related to this deterrence question. If Federal judges can be persuaded to think about the subject, I hope Business Ethics Quarterly and its contributors will take up the issue (if that is not already being done)
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To:
Sent: 11/4/2012 6:10:05 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: To BEQ authors: re Citigroup mortgage fraud settlement
Dear Professors,
Following on from the below email to you in October 2011, I propose to file this amicus curiae objection in the settlement hearing that will be held in due course for the recently announced $2.4 billion settlement that Bank of America has agreed to regarding the Merrill Lynch acquisition that Bank of America made in 2008.
A main question raised in the objection is the effectiveness of entity liability, on the one hand, and individual officer and employee liability, on the other hand, for deterring corporate wrongdoing. The draft objection currently say, "It is further noted that there seems to be a lack of academic interest and a paucity of academic research."
I would very much appreciate any aid you can give me in making to the Court citations of academic articles on the subject that you think the Court should consider.
Please help me out if you can.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To:
CC: francesco.guerrera@wsj.com, michael.siconolfi@wsj.com, ethicsconcern@citi.com
Sent: 10/28/2011 8:19:20 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: To BEQ authors: re Citigroup mortgage fraud settlement
Dear Professors,
This October 20 Wall Street Journal article on the Citigroup mortgage fraud settlement for $285 million against Citigroup also reports that the SEC has negligence civil charges against a Citigroup employee that it is pursuing. The lawyer for the Citigroup employee is quoted as saying, "He was not responsible for any alleged wrongdoing, he did not control or trade the position, did not prepare the disclosures and did not select the assets," and, "We will vigorously defend this lawsuit."
Here are some arguably compelling questions for business ethicists:
1. If there is wrongdoing for which Citigroup is called on to pay $285 million, shouldn't officers and employees who are responsible for the wrongdoing be held liable to some extent?
2. If responsible officers and employees are not held liable to some extent, is that not a signal to all officers and employees, "Go ahead, put your thinking caps on, and come up with your next idea for making the company money, don't worry too much about whether it is ethical or not, ideally the company will make some good money from it and be able to pay you additional compensation for the year, and no one will be the wiser, of, if your idea does come a cropper and a liability has to be paid, it will come out of the hides of the stockholders and not you, so again don't worry"?
3. If there is wrongdoing by Citigroup, are there legitimate reasons why responsible officers and employees should not be held personally liable?
4. Is it possible that the legal system works so badly that there is fact no wrongdoing but a $285 million payment still gets extracted from Citigroup? If so, and there is no wrongdoing, can that have any adverse effect on attitudes and efforts related to Citigroup and its officers and employees being more ethical?
5. Will a meaningful determination be in fact made of wrongdoing, or not, in this matter, which will provide guidance to other officers and employees of Citigroup and of other banks and corporations, relative to future decisions and actions of such officers and employees?
Rob Shattuck

Trust and Distrust in Organizations

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: kramer_rod@gsb.stanford.edu
CC: KrehmeyerD@darden.virginia.edu, mpainter@depaul.edu
Sent: 4/1/2012 9:58:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time

Subj: TRUST AND DISTRUST IN ORGANIZATIONS: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions

Dear Professor Kramer,

I have looked at your above article by reason of its recent citation by Mr. Dean Krehmeyer here: [Comment from the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, which is second comment at this link]. ("Well intended actions can have unintended consequences, as illustrated by one academic study showing that employees who are subjected to additional, compulsory oversight measures often 'become less committed to internal standards of honesty and integrity in the workplace,' which are precisely the standards that promote sustainable, long-term value.")

My interest includes that I am embarked on a project to investigate the views and information that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing. See this Statement of project. Right now I am trying to make a case study of the recent $25 billion robo-signing settlement (see this link).

Society, through the criminal and civil law, subjects employees (and corporations), in Mr. Krehmeyer words "to additional, compulsory oversight measures" and the result, in your words quoted by Mr. Krehmeyer, is that they "become less committed to internal standards of honesty and integrity in the workplace."

My project and case study are centrally about the "additional, compulsory oversight measures" of the criminal and civil law. Further, "interested parties" include lawmakers, regulators, judges, prosecutors, state attorneys general, plaintiffs' lawyers, corporate management, and ethics officers ("non-academics"). I am particularly interested in what the academic parties have to say to the non-academic parties.

Mr. Krehmeyer has given very significant weight to your article and supporting research. He does not indicate much about countervailing academic viewpoints.

For several years I have been endeavoring to explore the other side of the coin, first with Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? , and then with "Whither the Quest of Business Ethicists?" .

Dr. Painter-Morland, the editor of the Business and Professional Ethics Journal, has encouraged me regarding the latter article, but has said it is on the short side for academic journals and that it could "benefit from more engagement with the extant literature on the topic." I said I would try some more.

If some "extant literature on [my] topic" comes quickly to your mind, I would very much appreciate it if you would mention the same to me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

Business and Professional Ethics Journal

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: bpej@depaul.edu
Sent: 12/2/2011 8:42:51 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Follow up to 2009 submission

Dear Sir or Madam,

In 2009 I submitted "Whither the Quest of Business Ethicists?" to the Business and Professional Ethics Journal.

Connected to my article, earlier this year, I initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

In trying to proceed with my project, I have contacted a variety of persons, including the Business Ethics Quarterly and several recent authors in that journal. You may review my correspondence at these entries in my blog.

I continue interested in publishing my article "Whither the Quest of Business Ethicists?" and in finding collaboration and relevant literature pertaining to my project and also an outlet for publishing an article growing out of my project.

If the Business and Professional Ethics Journal and its staff can provide me any help to locate relevant literature or refer me to a possible collaborator or can encourage me about possible article publication in the journal, I will be very thankful.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

Project for Law & Business Ethics

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Eric.Chaffee@notes.udayton.edu
Sent: 9/21/2011 4:02:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Is this within your law and business ethics project?
Dear Professor Chaffee,

The Project for Law and Business Ethics website says, "The project's mission is to explore the role of law and lawyers in promoting the ethical operation of business entities and preventing ethical breaches before they occur."

I think my article Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? discusses a matter that should qualify for and is worthy of exploration in your law and business ethics project. Would you care to comment?

Thank you.

Rob Shattuck


From: RDShatt@aol.com

To: eric.chaffee@notes.udayton.edu
Sent: 11/10/2011 7:04:20 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Is this within your law and business ethics project?
Dear Professor Chaffee,

I am following up on the below email I sent you in September. I continue interested in whether you think this is worthy of exploration in your law and business ethics project.

I have this project of my own to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing. Could I make my project informally part of your law and business ethics project? Isthere another faculty advisor for the law and business ethics project who you think would be interested in collaborating on my project?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck 

From: Eric.Chaffee@notes.udayton.edu
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 11/10/2011 10:15:16 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Fwd: Is this within your law and business ethics project?
Rob,

Thank you for your inquiry. Although your project looks interesting, unfortunately, the Project does not have the resources to collaborate at this point.

Best,

Eric

Eric C. Chaffee
Associate Professor
Chair, Project for Law & Business Ethics
University of Dayton School of Law
300 College Park Dr.
Dayton, OH 45469-2772
937-229-4622

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Eric.Chaffee@notes.udayton.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu, KDarcy@theecoa.org, pat@ethics.org
Sent: 11/12/2011 5:58:52 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Is this within your law and business ethics project?
Thank you very much for replying, Eric.

It's too bad your Project for Law & Business Ethics doesn't have the resources at the moment, because I think my project is dead center in the intersection of law and business ethics that your Project touts.

I have been corresponding with recent Business Ethics Quarterly authors. I think my topic is being overlooked and it has great promise for numerous interesting research questions and also much multi-disciplinary appeal. If you wish to judge about this for yourself, you should look at my email correspondence at the following three links: link1, link2 and link3 . Also, you should look at my article "Whither the Quest of Business Ethicists?" that I tried to get published in Business Ethics Quarterly in 2009 and my correspondence with Professor Weaver regarding the same that is here.

The idea of altering the legal machinery to make individual officers and employees more accountable is extremely challenging. There may be legitimate grounds for not doing so. Corporate management could be adamantly opposed. I think ethics and compliance officers are inhibited from speaking on the subject because of what management may think. (Again, if you would like to judge for yourself, take a look at the many blog posts I have under the label "F1. ECOA" that are here.)

The Ethics Resource Center did a 2010 white paper Ethical Leadership and Executive Compensation: Rewarding Integrity in the C-Suite that argues for some things that may not be viewed entirely favorably by corporate management. I used that white paper and also the ERC's 2010 white paper Too Big To Regulate: Preventing Misconduct in the Private Sector to urge the Ethics Resource Center to extend its work to my topic as well. See this email and this email.

Until I find someone else willing to collaborate with me, please consider that you have a standing offer for my project to be incorporated in your Law & Business Ethics Project and worked on by me on an unpaid basis.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

More Business Ethics Quarterly authors

To: lackert@kennesaw.edu, bryan.church@mgt.gatech.edu, jason.kuang@mgt.gatech.edu, lqi@agnesscott.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/3/2011 3:52:23 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: "Lying"
Dear Professors Ackert, Church, Kuang, and Qi,
I wish to comment on your above article in the Business Ethics Quarterly.
Corporate wrongdoing is a very significant societal problem, and outright lying and other forms of dishonesty predominate in corporate misconduct.
Almost all of such lying and dishonesty are for the purpose of economic gain, and not for other psychological reasons.
If the goal of business ethicists is to lessen corporate wrongdoing, it would seem more relevant to focus on lying and dishonesty that are for the purpose of economic gain and on research and theoy about how to deter that kind of lying and dishonesty. Research about lying for non-economic purposes seems much less important.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Adam.Bailey@BHSU.edu, strudler@wharton.upenn.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/3/2011 3:53:59 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: "Dialogue - The Confucian Critique of Rights-Based Business Ethics"
Dear Professors Bailey and Strudler,
I wish to comment on your above dialogue in the Business Ethics Quarterly.
There seems to be an endless train of highly publicized corporate wrongdoing that is of great societal concern.
I think most of the wrongdoing is unacceptable, selfish seeking of personal economic gain by means of dishonesty, subterfuge and concealment, and putting of self interest ahead of others in conflict of interest situations.
As to rights in the workplace (and elsewhere in the commercial world), and whether particular rights exist or not, and whether they should be recognized by corporations or not, it seems to me that the primary governor of corporate conduct about the same is the law. Corporations have plenty on their plate to understand what all the rights are that the law provides for and to figure out how to conduct their corporate activities in ways that properly recognize those rights. I think it can create muddle and distraction to try to inject into corporate governance ideas and debate about "moral" rights beyond the rights that the law provides for.
In terms of which is of greater societal concern, corporate wrongdoing growing out of self-interested dishonesty, or corporate wrongdoing (independent of dishonesty) of a corporation failing to understand and give proper accord to rights that actors in the commercial world have under the law, I would say the first kind of corporate wrongdoing is of greater concern (mainly because most actors in the commercial world will not knowingly stray from the law except in instances where they are pursuing dishonest practices to achieve wrongful economic gain for themselves).
If the goal of business ethicists is to lessen corporate wrongdoing, it would seem more relevant and important to focus on dishonesty and conflict of interest that are at the root of corporate wrongdoing and on research and theory about how to deter that kind of dishonesty. Theorizing about "moral" rights in the workplace and elsewhere in the commerical world beyond rights provided by the law seems much less relevant.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: BobKolb@mac.com, jmoriar@bgsu.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/3/2011 4:55:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Dialogue - CEO Compensation
Dear Professors Kolb and Moriarity,
I wish to comment on your above dialogue in the Business Ethics Quarterly.
Human nature is patently selfish in great measure, and altruism is frequently absent. This is especially so in the business world, particularly taking into account Adam Smith's enshrinement of the pursuit of self interest as a virtue for achieving a greater good for all.
Religion and philosophy have sought for centuries to teach human beings to be less selfish, and those efforts should not cease.
Pending greater success of religious and philosophical teachings, it seems imperative that society utilize the selfishness of human nature that responds to incentives of things that are selfishly desired and that seeks to avoid punishments, in order to deter undesired conduct.
This includes CEO compensation, and the Ethics Resource Center is to be highly lauded for its white paper Too Big To Regulate: Preventing Misconduct in the Private Sector that argues strongly for alteration of compensation structures in order to prevent misconduct in the private sector such as contributed to the recent financial crisis in the United States.
I believe another area that needs more consideration and research by business ethicists is that of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing. I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have on this subject.
If the goal of business ethicists is to lessen corporate wrongdoing in a meaningful way, I am not sure how helpful it is to expend effort debating whether CEO's should refuse to accept compensation higher than what is required for the CEO to be willing to do his or her job. Such effort could be better expended I think, for example, on my project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: BobKolb@mac.com, jmoriar@bgsu.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu, pat@ethics.org
Sent: 11/13/2011 7:53:18 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Dialogue - CEO Compensation (correction)

Dear Professors Kolb and Moriarity,

In my below November 3 email to you, I incorrectly referred to the Ethics Resource Center's 2010 white paper Too Big To Regulate: Preventing Misconduct in the Private Sector. I was intending to refer to the ERC's 2010 white paper Ethical Leadership and Executive Compensation: Rewarding Integrity in the C-Suite, and the statements I made in my email should be read as referring to the latter white paper.

I should say I used both white papers to urge the Ethics Resource Center to extend its work to my topic as well. See this email and this email.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

From: JMORIARTY@bentley.edu
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 11/13/2011 12:14:04 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: RE: Dialogue - CEO Compensation (correction)

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your interest, and for the link.

Best,

Jeff

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: JMORIARTY@bentley.edu
Sent: 11/16/2011 4:35:11 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Dialogue - CEO Compensation (correction)

Thank you for replying, Jeff.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

From: Adam.Bailey@bhsu.edu
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 11/3/2011 8:44:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: "Dialogue - The Confucian Critique of Rights-Based Business Ethics"
Hi Rob,
While I can't say I agree with your views, I am grateful for your comments, and I appreciate your concern for the greater good.
Best,
Adam

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Adam.Bailey@bhsu.edu
Sent: 11/4/2011 3:17:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: "Dialogue - The Confucian Critique of Rights-Based Business Ethics"
You are welcome, Adam, and thank you for replying.
If you haven't found your way to this entry and this entry in my blog, you might be interested in reading those.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: j.l.johnson@uva.nl, kelly.martin@business.colostate.edu, asaini@unlnotes.unl.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/6/2011 8:37:58 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: STRATEGIC CULTURE AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AS DETERMINANTS OF ANOMIE
Dear Professors Johnson, Martin and Saini,

In the appendix of your above Business Ethics Quarterly article that sets out your study measures, you indicate that anomie was measured by requesting firms to respond by circling the number of whichever of the below was most appropriate:

1. In our firm, there is pressure to meet organizational objectives by any means possible.
2. For the most part at work, there is no right or wrong way to achieve the firm’s goals.
3. At work it is considered okay to play dirty to win.
4. The attitude in our firm is that sometimes it is necessary to lie to others in order to keep their trust.
5. In our firm, the rules can be broken in order to achieve organizational goals.
6. The prevailing attitude in our firm is that “nice guys finish last.”
7. In our firm the feeling is that the ends justify the means.
8. In our firm you have to be willing to break some rules if that is what it takes to get the job done.

I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

I would like to measure the effectiveness of entity level liability compared to officer and employee individual liability for purposes of deterring corporate wrongdoing.

One way I would like to measure that is by asking officers and employees (starting with companies where wrongdoing has allegedly taken place) a number of questions along the lines set forth below. For discussion purposes, let's take two examples of alleged wrongdoing that have received recent publicity, to wit, this at Citigroup and this at Bank of New York Mellon (the "subject examples").

I will need to refine the questions and/or work on format, but this is the gist of questions I would like to ask officers and employees at Citigroup and Bank of New York Mellon:

1. Is your belief that wrongdoing in fact took place in the subject examples?

2. To what extent do you believe that officers and employees who were participants in the wrongdoing were aware at the time that they were participating in wrongdoing?

3. In their deciding to participate in the wrongdoing, to what extent do you believe that officer and employee participants made estimates of the likelihood of the wrongdoing getting exposed?

4. In their deciding to participate in the wrongdoing, to what extent do you believe that officer and employee participants made estimates of the likelihood that they would bear any personal liability for the wrongdoing if it was exposed?

5. To what extent do you believe that officer and employee participants were uncertain at the time about whether wrongdoing was being perpetrated?

6. Is a factor contributing to uncertainty about whether something is a wrongdoing the prevalence of legal settlements that corporations make in which the corporation denies or does not admit that there was any wrongdoing?

7. To what extent do you believe that corporations enter into legal settlements in which there is not in fact any wrongdoing?

8. How much greater deterrent effect, if any, do think would obtain if there was a rule of law that there could be no liability (or legal settlement) of a corporation for wrongdoing unless there was some personal liability (or legal settlement) of officer and employee participants in the wrongdoing?

9. To what extent do you believe that any or all the foregoing matters affect in a negative way officer and employee actions and decisions relative to being ethical? To what extent do you believe there is waste and diversion of economic resources in much litigation that could be better spent in other ways to improve corporate behavior?

Professors, your article deals with, and you have investigated, whether certain culture and contextual factors engender or lessen anomie. I would like to suggest that you might consider whether entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability is a factor that can engender or lessen anomie.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: jeffery_smith@redlands.edu, w.dubbink@uvt.nl
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/7/2011 8:27:45 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Understanding the Role of Moral Principles in Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective
Dear Professors Smith and Dubbink,

On page 220 of your above article in the Business Ethics Quarterly, you say, "Judging what one ought to do in a particular case is not a matter of being directed by an external authority, whether a person, government or set of conventions."

I am endeavoring to gauge the extent to which business ethicists such as yourselves acknowledge a relevant role in the study of business ethics for the law and government.

I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

I have been reviewing the past couple years' issues of the Business Ethics Quarterly as an indicator of what is currently in vogue in the study of business ethics and whether my project can garner any interest. I have contacted numerous authors of recent articles (my email correspondence can be found in the main here). Thus far, I would say I have received no indication that my project is viewed as having any merit to be worth pursuing (although no one has said in so many words that they think my project has no merit).

I have not given up yet on my project and am continuing my contacting of business ethicists about it.

If I may, may I ask, "Do think my project has merit worth pursuing in the business ethics field currently?"

Thank you for reading this email.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck  

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: meb239@psu.edu, msmitche@uga.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/9/2011 4:30:08 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: "Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New Avenues for Future Research"
Dear Professors Brown and Mitchell,

In your above article in the Business Ethics Quarterly, you articulate this "dark side" of unethical leadership:

The Concept of Unethical Leadership
The standing literature has not described destructive leader behavior as “unethical”;
however, the implication is clear. Unethical behavior involves acts that are illegal
and/or are morally inappropriate to larger society (Jones 1991).1 Dark side research
has uncovered a variety of unethical leader acts. Various terms have evolved in
the literature, such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), supervisor undermining
(Duffy et al., 2002), toxic leadership (Frost, 2004), and tyrannical leadership
(Ashforth, 1994). Research shows these leaders are oppressive, abusive, manipulative, and calculatingly undermining (Tepper, 2007). Their actions are perceived as intentional and harmful, and may be the source of legal action against employers (Tepper, 2007). Therefore, destructive leader behavior is unethical.
Unethical leadership, however, transcends beyond the leaders’ own behavior.
In seeking to accomplish organizational goals, leaders can encourage corrupt and
unethical acts within their organizations. For instance, Clement’s (2006) review of
corporate scandals in Fortune 100 corporations concluded that actions perpetrated
by executives, boards of directors, and government officials were the primary cause
of such transgressions. Leaders foster unethical behavior among followers without
engaging in the behavior themselves and do so by way of rewards, condoning nonconformers,and ignoring unethical acts (Ashforth &Anan d, 2003; Brief, Buttram,
& Dukerich, 2001). For instance, qualitative research shows leaders who reward
short-term results, model aggressive and Machiavellian behavior, do not punish
followers’ wrongdoing, and promote like-minded individuals heighten unethical
behavior within organizations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002). Indeed, research shows
employees engage in unethical acts to boost organizational performance or help the
organization in some other way (Finney &  Lesieur, 1982; Umphress,de Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010; Yeager, 1986). Such embedded practices can insulate leaders from
primary blame, essentially providing them “plausible deniability” (Baker & Faulkner,1993; Braithwaite, 1989). Leaders who engage in, enable, or foster unethical actswithin their organizations do not display ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005).
Instead, leaders who harness and embed unethical behavior of their followers display
unethical leadership (Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008). In sum, we define unethical
leadership as behaviors conducted and decisions made by organizational leaders
that are illegal and/or violate moral standards, and those that impose processes
and structures that promote unethical conduct by followers. We now review the
consequences and influences of unethical leadership.

Your article includes much discussion and elaboration of what has been learned about beneficial outcomes from ethical leadership and negative outcomes from unethical leadership, including significant financial detriments for business and psychological deteriments for employees as a result of unethical leadership. Per your article's title, your article explores further avenues for future research.

It is left somewhat unspoken in your article about a mechanism or mechanisms for increasing the prevalence of ethical leadership and lessening that of unethical leadership. Nor does your article's suggestions for future research seem to encompass finding or developing such a mechanism or mechanisms.

Possibly one mechanism is simply that of education, and that Boards of Directors will be persuaded about the positive outcomes from ethical leadership and will implement programs for identifying, hiring and cultivating ethical CEO's and other high level corporate officers. Possibly CEO's and other high level corporate officers will be themselves similarly persuaded and strive on their own to be or become ethical leaders.

Your article does not discuss whether the law is a mechanism for engendering ethical corporate leadership.

A few years ago, because of developments such as the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations and the Justice Department's Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. some business ethicists were very occupied with dissecting the same and theorizing about how the criminal law could be best applied to corporations and their officers and employees for purposes of deterring corporate wrongdoing.

I cannot tell from your article what your thoughts are about the law as a factor in fostering (or undermining) ethical corporate leadership and whether you take much interest in, say, the foregoing work of business ethicists relative to the criminal law.

For several years I have been endeavoring to put forth argumentation to the effect that certain aspects of the civil law significantly undermine business ethics. See my article Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? More recently I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

Are you interested in the law as a factor in engendering ethical corporate leadership? If not, can you refer me to any academic colleague of yours who you think would be interested in helping me with my project and eventually trying to publish a paper growing out of the same.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck