Using a Relational Models Perspective to Understand Normatively Appropriate Conduct in Ethical Leadership

To describe leadership as ethical is largely a perceptional phenomenon informed by beliefs about what is normatively appropriate. Yet there is a remarkable scarcity in the leadership literature regarding how to define what is “normatively appropriate”. To shed light on this issue, we draw upon Relational Models Theory (Fiske: 1992, Psychological Review, 99, 689-723), which differentiates between four types of relationships: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing. We describe how each of these relationship models dictates a distinct set of normatively appropriate behaviors. We argue that perceptions of unethical leadership behavior result from one of three situations: a) a mismatch between leader's and follower's relational models, b) a different understanding about the behavioral expression, or preos, of the same relational model, or c) a violation of a previously agreed upon relational model. Further, we argue that the type of relational model mismatch impacts the perceived severity of a transgression. Finally, we discuss the implications of our model with regard to understanding, managing, and regulating ethical leadership failures