Sustainable leadership and hegelian self-awareness

Sebastian, Anne; Hühn, Matthias Article Sustainable leadership and hegelian self-awareness Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Sebastian, Anne; Hühn, Matthias (2024) : Sustainable leadership and hegelian self-awareness, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010019 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320842 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Sebastian, Anne, and Matthias P. Hühn. 2024. Sustainable Leadership and Hegelian Self-Awareness. Administrative Sciences 14: 19. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/admsci14010019 Received: 26 October 2023 Revised: 3 January 2024 Accepted: 15 January 2024 Published: 22 January 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Sustainable Leadership and Hegelian Self-Awareness Anne Sebastian 1and Matthias P. Hühn 2,* 1Department Economics and Business, University of Navarra, 31009 Pamplona, Spain; [email protected].es 2Alex G. McKenna School of Business, Economics and Government, Saint Vincent College, Latrobe, PA 15650-2690, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The contribution of businesses to sustainability, captured in the concept of the triple bottom line (people, profit, planet), has been given a lot of attention. One line of argument is to make sustainability mandatory via regulation, while another is to create a consciousness for questions of sustainability in the minds of managers, that is, to make managers agents of sustainability. Thus, there is debate about what behaviors, practices, and skills leaders need for positive sustainability. In recent years, scholars have attempted to develop leadership approaches (e.g., sustainable leadership, sustainability leadership) that contribute to the implementation of sustainability and positively influence sustainability practices, filling a perceived gap in the current literature. Here, connections to popular relationship-based approaches such as ethical leadership, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, and responsible leadership are also discussed. In this paper, we debate to what extent a specific leadership type is necessary to successfully lead a company into a sustainable future or whether, regardless of conceptualized behaviors, practices, and skills, it is not the core character and attitude of leaders that is crucial to changing the company culture to achieve the goal of sustainable business. This paper first outlines the existing literature on leadership approaches designed to lead to greater sustainability. It does not claim to be exhaustive but refers to the most prominent research findings. It then critically assesses these and raises questions. In the third section, we propose an alternative view of successful leadership toward positive sustainability. Keywords: sustainable leadership; philosophical approaches; self-awareness 1. Introduction To avoid past mistakes, e.g., the environmental damage caused by the improper disposal of waste and the exploitation of natural resources, the pursuit of short-term profits without considering environmental and social impacts (Avery 2005), and the involvement in exploitative labor practices (Chen et al. 2022), and commit companies to implementing sustainable practices, policy makers are taking a range of measures. Numerous political initiatives, beginning with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), strive to strengthen the importance of sustainability in public life. Economic, environmental, and social aspects of development are taken into account (Kaumanns et al. 2016, p. 25). This conception of sustainability is based on the so-called Brundtland definition, which states that sustainable development involves meeting present needs without compromising the satisfaction of the needs of future generations (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). In recent years, companies have increasingly been required to account for the economic, environmental, and social impacts of their organization in sustainability reports. Political measures aim to bring drastic transformation to the economy and society. Scholars from different disciplines seem to agree that environmental and social goals can only be achieved if companies change the way they do business (Tideman et al. 2013). Corporations are seen as major contributors to environmental and social challenges but also as important problem solvers (Piwowar-Sulej et al. 2021). For a long time, companies Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010019 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 2 of 15 have considered it their primary goal to maximize individual income and financial wealth (Zsolnai 2018). Moreover, economic actors have been described as perfectly rational, selfinterest-maximizing beings (Zsolnai 2002). Companies have been accused of not sufficiently fulfilling their responsibility to society. As early as 1953, Howard Bowen described in his work “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman” that every business decision has influence and sometimes far-reaching effects on different parts of society, and therefore the interests of these stakeholders must be taken into account. Building on this, Davis postulated in 1960 that a separation of economic and noneconomic aspects is impossible. He also criticized the purely functionalist view of human beings in economic theory. Especially during the 2000s, economic publications have increasingly discussed the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which deals with the responsibility of companies for their social impact. A common foundation of many interpretations of CSR is based on the concept of the “triple bottom line,” which dates to the work of the Brundtland Commission in 1987 and the contribution by Elkington (1997). This approach is also referred to as the “3Ps” or “Three Pillars” (Ksi˛e˙ zak and Fischbach 2018). It calls for companies to simultaneously care about profits, people (employees and society), and the planet (environment) to pursue sustainable business practices. In other words, this idea emphasizes the existence of three dimensions of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. To transform companies into sustainable organizations in which all three dimensions are considered, a special role is attributed to the leader (Gerard et al. 2017; Dalati et al. 2017;Piwowar-Sulej et al. 2021). Within this context, discussions revolve around the specific behaviors, methods, and competencies that leaders have to have in order to promote a positive approach to sustainability. In recent years, researchers have made efforts to formulate leadership frameworks (e.g., sustainable leadership, sustainability leadership, and environmental leadership) aimed at advancing the integration of sustainability concerns and fostering positive sustainability practices, addressing what seems to be a gap in the existing literature (Boeske 2023). Additionally, there is an ongoing dialogue regarding the connections between these frameworks and well-established relationship-based leadership theories such as ethical leadership, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, and responsible leadership (Metcalf and Benn 2013;McCann and Sweet 2013). This paper delves into the debate regarding the extent to which a specific leadership approach is beneficial for effectively guiding a company toward a sustainable future. While extant sustainable leadership approaches focus on predefined behaviors, practices, and skills, we propose that to be truly sustainable, good leadership rests on the character of the leader. Character is the combination of attitudes, ideally only virtues, that are stable over time (Hühn and Meyer 2023, p. 545), and thus, it is character that holds the key to transforming the corporate culture and achieving the goal of sustainable business. The initial section of this paper provides an overview of the existing literature concerning leadership approaches aimed at fostering greater sustainability. While we do not claim to provide an exhaustive review, we intend to reference the most prominent research findings. Subsequently, the paper critically evaluates these findings and suggests a research gap. In this context, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) will also be critically discussed. In the third section, we introduce the selbstbewußte leader as an alternative perspective on successful leadership in the context of promoting sustainability. Finally, a concluding section summarizes the key points of the paper. 2. Leadership and Sustainability: What the Mainstream Says The idea that leadership can contribute to sustainability is, in principle, not a new development and has its roots in various leadership approaches that have emerged over the past seventy years or so (Bowen 1953;Davis 1960). However, the focused exploration of leadership in the context of sustainability has only gained prominence in recent decades (Hargreaves and Fink 2006;Ferdig 2007;Crews 2010;Metcalf and Benn 2013;Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018;Liao 2022). While the literature has grown since the 1990s (Hallinger Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 3 of 15 and Suriyankietkaew 2018), there is very little structure to it (Liao 2022). Waldman and Siegel (2008), for instance, criticize the fact that even within such a well-established research program as corporate social responsibility, the role of corporate leadership has been largely ignored. The basic principles of sustainable leadership can be traced back to research on the role of leadership in the context of “sustainable change” and the emphasis on ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility. For that reason, a variety of leadership behaviors have been directly or indirectly associated with CSR (Campbell 2006;Waldman and Siegel 2008;Angus-Leppan et al. 2010). Moreover, the emphasis on values that underlies many approaches to sustainable leadership clearly indicates an explicit link to leadership models such as transformational, authentic, and responsible leadership (Waldman and Siegel 2008;Metcalf and Benn 2013;McCann and Sweet 2013;Tideman et al. 2013;Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018;Liao 2022). There is strong conceptual overlap among these research streams (Metcalf and Benn 2013). Before turning to the concept of the new leadership model of “sustainable leadership” (Avery 2005;Hargreaves and Fink 2006;Day and Schmidt 2007;Morsing and Oswald 2009;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b;Kantabutra 2012) or “sustainability leadership” (Ferdig 2007;Galpin and Whittington 2012;Lourenço et al. 2014;Robinson et al. 2011;Shriberg and MacDonald 2013), we briefly outline the abovementioned concepts. 2.1. Ethical Leadership The earliest research program linking ethics and leadership was ethical leadership, pioneered by Joanne B. Ciulla (1995,2003). Ethical leadership means “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision making” (Brown et al. 2005, p. 120). Ethical leaders are viewed as honest, trustworthy, fair, and principled. They demonstrate a strong commitment to ethical behavior in both their personal and professional lives and actively influence the ethical behavior of their employees through rewards and punishments (Brown and Treviño 2006). 2.2. Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership concepts, proposed for instance by Bernard Bass, are predicated on the assumption that leadership is based on a shared vision and ethical–moral principles and represents a process that changes or transforms both the leaders and the led (Bass 1985). Transformational leaders develop a meaningful, long-term vision for the entire organization based on fundamental values. Transformational leadership emphasizes empowering employees, who are actively involved in implementing the vision and are actively supported by the leader (Yukl 2013;Stippler et al. 2011). By involving those being led, sustainability can be achieved. Charisma and self-awareness represent central factors in transformational leadership and are central and necessary characteristics of the leader (Bass 1985,1999). 2.3. Authentic Leadership The essential aspect in the concept of authenticity is to recognize, accept, and remain true to oneself. A strong awareness of oneself is the necessary prerequisite. It is important to note that authenticity is not defined as a concrete blueprint or stable construct but rather as a continuum in which people become increasingly authentic as they remain true to their core values, ideals, preferences, and emotions (Avolio et al. 2004). Authentic leaders have a deep understanding of their values and core beliefs and are described as confident, sincere, reliable, and trustworthy (Avolio and Gardner 2005). Their high moral values enable them to assess difficult situations from different perspectives and consider different needs of different stakeholders (May et al. 2003). It is important to note, however, that authenticity is mediated by the usefulness of strategically disclosing and withholding certain aspects on one’s self (Goffee and Jones 2005), as leaders see themselves and others as functions. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 4 of 15 2.4. Responsible Leadership The “Responsible Leadership” approach was developed by Thomas Maak and Nicola M. Pless in their paper “Responsible Leadership: A Relational Approach” in 2006. They emphasize the importance of ethical leadership, social responsibility, and shaping leadership in a way that focuses on the relationships between leaders and their stakeholders. Responsible leaders manage to get different people to follow a common and morally based vision. Responsible leadership emphasizes the responsibility of leaders not only for financial results but also for social and environmental impacts of business decisions. Thus, this approach is focused on the holistic and integrated role of leaders in a complex and stakeholder-oriented business environment (Maak and Pless 2006a;Székely and Knirsch 2005). 2.5. Sustainable Leadership Complex phenomena surrounding organizations (Avery 2005;Dyllick and Hockerts 2002), such as climate change, resource scarcity, cultural conflicts, and many others, require a realignment of goals (Mebratu 1998;Boiral et al. 2014) and have led to the emergence of this new leadership model. The number of contributions to this research stream are still limited, and there is no consensus of scholars’ views on connotation, delineation of dimensions, and measurement (Liao 2022;Boeske 2023) yet. While some researchers use sustainable leadership and sustainability leadership (or environmental leadership) largely synonymously (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018), Boeske (2023) elaborates on similarities and differences and combines them into one concept under the term “leadership toward sustainability”. However, most scholars agree that sustainable leadership is multidimensional (Gerard et al. 2017). The strong overlap with prominent leadership concepts, such as ethical, transformational, authentic, and accountable leadership, makes it difficult to properly delineate the research from the older and wider research and thus complicates future efforts (Liao 2022). Nevertheless, Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew (2018), Liao (2022), and Boeske (2023) in particular have attempted to provide a systematic overview of the concept. In this paper, we use the term sustainable leadership superordinately. Scholars postulate that leadership for sustainability places new demands on leaders and requires them to develop new and exceptional skills (Metcalf and Benn 2013;Boeske 2023). One of the earliest conceptual definitions of “sustainable leadership” is from 2004 by Hargreaves and Fink and is situated in educational organizations. They emphasize that sustainable leadership aims to meet the needs of today’s society without compromising the opportunities of future generations. This approach stresses the responsibility of leaders to address sustainability issues and take action, regardless of their formal position. Avery took this research further in 2005, shedding light on the concept of sustainable leadership in organizations. In his concept, sustainable leadership has its roots in what he calls “Rhenish management,” which is based on the values of Rhenish capitalism. In contrast to American capitalism, Rhenish capitalism emphasizes the responsibility of organizations in society, long-term perspectives, balanced results, ethical behavior, and social responsibility. Avery and Bergsteiner (2011b) state that sustainable leadership in organizations involves long-term decision making, systematic innovation, cultivating a loyal employee team, providing high-quality products and services, and balancing people, profits, and the environment. Sustainable leadership is rooted in a social, cultural, and institutional context and is based on personal and organizational values (Albert 1992; Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a,2011b;Kantabutra 2012). These values, such as moderation, prudence, mutual respect, and ethics (Visser and Courtice 2011;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a;Ferdig 2007;Kantabutra and Suriyankietkaew 2011;Hind et al. 2009;Kantabutra and Avery 2011;Kantabutra and Avery 2013), influence the vision and nature of interactions between leaders and their followers (Kim and Brymer 2011;Visser and Courtice 2011; Ferdig 2007;Kantabutra and Avery 2011;Kantabutra and Avery 2013;Kantabutra and Avery 2007;Kantabutra and Siebenhüner 2011). Sustainable leadership requires a high level of self-awareness (Liao 2022). Sustainable leadership aims to engage a wide range of stakeholders inside and outside the organization (Maak and Pless 2006b;Robinson Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 5 of 15 et al. 2011;Albert 1992;Orlitzky et al. 2011;Kantabutra and Avery 2011) and defines success using indicators that go beyond traditional measures, such as the “triple bottom line” of economic, social, and environmental outcomes (Kantabutra 2012;Fry and Slocum 2008;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a,2011b;Kantabutra and Siebenhüner 2011). Finally, the sustainable leadership model aims at creating resilient organizations, communities, and societies that can withstand shocks and unforeseen events (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b, 2012;Day and Schmidt 2007;Székely and Knirsch 2005;Petrick et al. 1999;Piboolsravut 2004;Youssef and Luthans 2007), which promotes a long-term perspective and resilience (Avery and Bergsteiner 2011a,2011b,2012;Ferdig 2007;Albert 1992;Kantabutra 2014; Youssef and Luthans 2007;Lipsey and Wilson 2001). Boeske (2023) distills six central findings from the existing literature and summarizes them. The first key result identified by Boeske (2023) is social and environmental responsibility. Sustainable leadership is focused on protecting the environment, valuing people, and caring for society. It follows the “triple bottom line” perspective that considers people, the planet, and profits equally (Hargreaves and Fink 2006;Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018; Suriyankietkaew 2022;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b;McCann and Sweet 2013;Tideman et al. 2013). Furthermore, organizational preservation and sustainability are identified as important outcomes. Sustainable leadership aims to shape organizations for the long term and in a meaningful way, taking into account both shortand long-term goals. This includes planning for succession and creating a long-term perspective (Hargreaves and Fink 2006;Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018;Tideman et al. 2013;Davies 2007;Nisha et al. 2022;Suriyankietkaew et al. 2022;McCann and Holt 2011;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b;Kantabutra and Avery 2013). The third outcome (shared responsibility) emphasizes engaging diverse stakeholders and creating effective relationships. Both decentralized and transformational leadership are considered effective approaches to sustainability (Hargreaves and Fink 2006;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b;Tideman et al. 2013;Piwowar-Sulej and Iqbal 2023;Nisha et al. 2022;Burawat 2019;Liao 2022). Moral and ethical behavior is mentioned as the fourth outcome. Sustainable leadership is based on moral considerations and requires ethical behavior. Being transparent and “doing the right thing” are important aspects (Hargreaves and Fink 2006;Svensson and Wood 2007;Suriyankietkaew et al. 2022; Kantabutra and Avery 2013;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b;Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018;Nisha et al. 2022). Boeske identifies continuous improvement and organizational change as the fifth key outcome. Sustainable leadership requires creativity, innovation, and a continuous, dynamic process to remain competitive (Iqbal et al. 2020;Nisha et al. 2022; Svensson and Wood 2007;Tideman et al. 2013;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b;DominguezEscrig and Mallen-Broch 2023;Schein 2010). Finally, organizational culture is the sixth outcome: leaders’ values and norms determine organizational culture, which is usually characterized by shared values and beliefs (Schein 2010;Kantabutra and Avery 2013; Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018;Tideman et al. 2013;Svensson and Wood 2007). Characteristics such as a long-term vision, innovativeness, inclusion of all stakeholders, social responsibility, and systemic change—but most importantly, the strong emphasis on values and the ethical and moral behavior necessary to achieve sustainability—suggest a link to the leadership models outlined above. Furthermore, it can be observed that self-awareness plays a central role. There are, however, researchers who suggest that greater sustainability cannot be achieved through moral decision making (Metcalf and Benn 2012;Waldman and Siegel 2008) but requires the strategic focus from and complex problem-solving skills of leaders. Therefore, exceptional skills, emotional intelligence, and the personality of the leader are critical to recognize and navigate complexity and engage diverse stakeholders in organizational change (Metcalf and Benn 2013). However, despite the stakeholder focus, it is widely believed that the leader’s personal morality can be a driver of CSR (Hargreaves and Fink 2006;Svensson and Wood 2007;Suriyankietkaew et al. 2022;Kantabutra and Avery 2013;Avery and Bergsteiner 2011b;Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew 2018;Nisha et al. 2022), and ethical behavior leads to effectiveness as Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 6 of 15 measured by organizational financial and social success (Waldman and Siegel 2008;De Hoogh and Den Hartog 2008;Brown et al. 2005). 3. Moral Philosophical Critiques of Mainstream Approaches As mentioned above, Waldman and Siegel (2008), among others, criticize the fact that the role of leadership has not been taken into account in the corporate social responsibility literature. Other critics go even further and postulate that the concept of responsibility, which originates from moral philosophy, is not used appropriately (Hühn 2023). In the CSR approach, responsibility is understood as collective or corporate moral responsibility, a concept that is shunned by moral philosophers (Rönnegard 2015;Hühn 2018). The idea of responsibility is rooted in the basic concept underlying the three respective approaches to ethics (duties, virtues, consequences) and deals with the bearers of responsibility, the things they are responsible for, their mutual relations, and the entities that make the judgment. This means that a person (subject) assumes responsibility in relation to a specific concern (object) and does so to a specific party (addressee) before an instance (evaluating body) within a specific framework and on the basis of evaluation criteria (Fetzer 2004). The classical definition of responsibility, in the sense of “bearing responsibility for a negative consequence of action”, starts from the central social problem of attributing consequences to a specific action (Bayertz 1995). The person who causally brings about an event through his or her actions is considered responsible for that event. Responsibility can therefore only be attributed to the subject who has the ability to act intentionally and to reflect on the consequences of his actions (Bayertz 1995;Rönnegard 2023). Accordingly, a collective or a corporation cannot be understood as the bearer of responsibility—only persons act and therefore can have responsibility. The employees and especially the managers are responsible for the implementation of the mentioned requirements themselves. Corporate responsibility can therefore not be an ethical construct (Rönnegard 2015). Considering the leader as a bearer of responsibility for the consideration of environmental and social dimensions in economic activity is thus essential. The outlined leadership models associated with a positive influence on corporate social responsibility are summarized by some researchers as “recent leadership theories” (Hannah et al. 2014) and others as “moral approaches” (Lemoine et al. 2019). All approaches are psychology-driven and have in common that an individual influences a group to achieve a common goal (Northouse 2007). The relationship and interaction between leader and follower are the focus of consideration (Northouse 2007;Bass 2008). While in all approaches, values and ethics play an important role, critics raise numerous problems regarding how these concepts are filled and then applied (Levine and Boaks 2014;Alvesson and Kärreman 2016; Spoelstra 2018;Van Knippenberg and Sitkin 2013;Yukl 1999;Alvesson and Einola 2019; Banks et al. 2016;Cooper et al. 2005;Gardner et al. 2011;Ford and Harding 2011;Ladkin and Spiller 2013). Concepts from moral philosophy such as virtue, duty, responsibility, respect, authenticity, etc., are filled with meaning that often is the opposite of the original concepts, according to critics (Rönnegard 2015;Alvesson and Einola 2019;Hühn 2018,2023). Levine and Boaks (2014) criticize such leadership approaches for making a close connection between leadership and ethics, often simply declaring that leaders are automatically good and effective without specifying this in more detail. Some leadership scholars assume that the good leader is characterized by a fixed, stable, and fundamentally noncontradictory value system (Alvesson and Einola 2019). In practice, however, it is evident that it is difficult to work with clear and consistent values. Leaders point out that it is challenging to combine the natural role of the leader with other people’s need for affirmation and recognition (Sveningsson and Alvesson 2016). While Levine and Boaks (2014) also believe that leadership is intrinsically normative, they criticize the relevant approaches for often being insufficiently theoretically grounded. Leadership involves grappling with social norms and navigating complex and controversial moral territory (Jackall 1988), rather than merely possessing and expressing the appropriate personality traits (Alvesson and Einola 2019). However, the theories considered can hardly Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 7 of 15 do without the charisma of the leader—the leader-hero (Levine and Boaks 2014;Alvesson and Einola 2019). Leadership is again increasingly viewed from the leader’s perspective, but the leader is not seen as a person but as a function in a hierarchy. In shaping transformational leadership, characteristics such as charisma, dominance, power-seeking, and self-awareness (House 1976) are not only relevant but also simply assumed to be present in an effective, i.e., functional, leader. Ciulla (1995) famously points out that if effectiveness is the only criterion or if ethicality is simply assumed to be included in effectiveness, leadership theory has a “Hitler problem”. Transformational leaders present strong moral guiding principles and are declared role models qua function. They are declared to embody competence, courage, and clear ideological goals. They have a strong sense of self. Some critics, such as Solomon (1998), fault the strong focus on charisma and self-awareness in transformational leadership studies and consider it dangerous for leadership because charisma can, and indeed should, be used for manipulative purposes with a lack of moral direction. This amoral view has become entrenched in many psychology-based leadership approaches. Take, for instance, authenticity, which in the past ten or so years has been given a lot of scholarly attention. Psychologists hold that authenticity is achieved through a strong awareness of oneself and how one is perceived by others (Goleman 1998;Avolio and Gardner 2005). Alvesson and Einola (2019) point out that authenticity in the true sense requires an intense, critical, inward-looking examination of the self. However, very few, if any, people achieve authenticity in the moral philosophical sense. In particular, true authenticity cannot be achieved in the leadership approaches shaped by psychology and outlined above, as all these approaches see leaders and the led as mere functions in a given hierarchy and thus strip them of what Immanuel Kant considered the essence of humanity: dignity. Thus, the basic underlying questions that philosophers ask—Who am I? Who do I want to be?—are replaced by these questions: What am I tasked with and how can I use my knowledge about self and how others perceive myself? This means that a true understanding of the self is not part of psychological approaches to leadership (Sebastian and Hühn 2023). Leadership requires influencing others and is, thus, a social process—bot psychologists and philosophers agree on that. However, in psychology, leading authentically is seen as such a difficult endeavor that only heroes can accomplish it. For leaders to be considered authentic, they would need to have personal core values that cannot be questioned, which could be perceived as inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise in a professional context. Rather, it is necessary to recognize organizations as places where many different moral ideals clash and leaders must reconcile people (Alvesson and Einola 2019;Jackall 1988). The sustainable leadership approach also attaches special importance to the leader’s exceptional ability and personality (Metcalf and Benn 2013). He or she should be able to oversee and manage the complexity of sustainability; develop a strategy in which the three dimensions of people, planet, and profit are equally considered; and exemplify and implement a value system that is shared by all stakeholders in order to transform the corporate culture. In the transformational and the authentic and sustainable leadership approaches, high self-awareness of the leader is a favorable characteristic. Self-awareness in these approaches means having a thorough understanding of one’s own strengths, weaknesses, and values and of how others see oneself. The goal is to turn people into followers. Critics state that ethics is left out; that in this view of self-awareness, the basic moral concept of respect is missing; and that it can been as a manipulative process (Sebastian and Hühn 2023). The heroic portrayal of the leader, with extraordinary abilities and impressive qualities, as well as the lack of a moral philosophical foundation on values, virtues, responsibility, respect, self-awareness, etc., in our view, all cast legitimate doubt on the suitability of these leadership approaches for achieving greater organizational sustainability. 4. The Selbstbewußte Leader In the following, we will explain which traps are created by the abovementioned leadership theories and how they can prevent companies from developing leaders that Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 8 of 15 allow them to attain greater sustainability. We will do so with reference to the philosophical theory of self-consciousness/self-awareness by Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel (1770–1831). Because the two terms, self-consciousness and self-awareness, mean different things, we will be using Hegel’s original selbstbewußt (self-conscious). Hegel’s concept of Selbstbewußtsein (self-consciousness) includes others: we attain our Selbstbewußtsein in a process of social and ethical reflection that includes creating social relationships (Kojève 1975). Because we go back to how the self finds its ethical foundations, our description of the selbstbewußte leader does not need to include concrete traits, behaviors, and technical skills. Hegel’s leader rests in himself/herself and thus is able to inspire, respect, educate, liberate, and unite his/her followers. Thus, s/he forms long-term relationships based on mutual recognition and trust. The selbstbewußte leader does not manipulate his/her followers and does not see them as mere means to achieve a certain end. As shown in the previous chapter, the personality of the leader is of central importance in psychological leadership approaches. Especially in transformational leadership, dominance and striving for power are highlighted as important characteristics that, according to Hegel, inevitably lead to a highly undesirable master–servant relationship. “Self-Sufficiency and Non-Self-Sufficiency of Self-Consciousness; Mastery and Servitude” is one of the best-known and most interpreted chapters from Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel posits that individual Selbstbewußtsein arises in the context of moral recognition by other individuals and is shaped or changed by interactions with those individuals (Hegel 2020;Kojève 1975;Tugendhat 1979;Marx 1986). In his view, Selbstbewußtsein is a product of interpersonal interactions that are interdependent. Hegel argues that all actions are due to moral principles. By performing ethical actions, individuals become aware of their own existence and subsequently develop mutual respect (Siep 1992). To understand what Hegel is trying to say, we need to backtrack a bit. Recognition is for Hegel the telos, the highest life goal that a person wants to achieve (Siep 2000): recognition means another person sees one’s dignity. Respect means seeing that the other has the same absolute moral worth as oneself. One respects (re specere: seeing again) and sees the other’s recognition of one’s own dignity reflected. In order to achieve the goal of being recognized by the other, desire is presupposed. One is driven to action by desire and wants to satisfy this desire to be recognized as a self at any cost. A person is even willing to sacrifice their life to be recognized and, thus, respected. A “fight for life and death” develops (Kojève 1975;Marx 1986). The counterpart is to be forced to confirm one’s own self-image, that is, to acknowledge one’s own conception of truth—or to acknowledge that one’s own Selbstbewußtsein is the actual real reality. By the real death of the counterpart, the self is deprived of what the fight is supposed to prove. To be recognized as an independent self is only possible when the other is alive (Siep 2000; Tugendhat 1979). As a result, two forms of Selbstbewußtsein emerge: one for which pure Selbstbewußtsein is the highest good and one for which life, one’s own self-preservation, is the most important thing. Translated into social relations, these two forms correspond to the Bewußtsein (consciousness) of the master and the servant (Siep 2000). If one of the individuals gives up the struggle prematurely in order to preserve herself, she must submit to the other, and the master–servant relationship emerges (Düsing 1986;Kojève 1975). Hegel apparently refers to the theory of slavery of antiquity but unites the two forms that Aristotle distinguished: slavery by fight and slavery by nature. For Hegel, servitude occurs when one of the combatants prefers his life (Siep 2000). After the master has decided the struggle for himself, he is first recognized and respected by the servant as independent. The servant suspends his independence and does what the master asks of him (Marx 1986). The relationship is unbalanced and not complete, as the master receives recognition from a person he himself does not recognize as an independent individual self. Consequently, the master recognizes that he himself is not truly recognized. His Bewußtsein (consciousness) is not independent. That means that, for Hegel, the formation of Selbstbewußtsein is not possible through the control of the free development of others. The servant, on the other hand, undergoes a reverse development of Bewußtsein. He considers himself dependent Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 19 15 of 15 Tugendhat, Ernst. 1979. Selbstbewußtsein und Selbstbestimmung: Sprachanalytische Interpretationen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Van Knippenberg, Daan, and Sim B. Sitkin. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatictransformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals 7: 1–60. [CrossRef] Visser, Wayne, and Polly Courtice. 2011. Sustainability Leadership: Linking Theory and Practice. Unpublished Work. Waldman, David A., and Donald Siegel. 2008. Defining the socially responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly 19: 117–31. [CrossRef] Wildt, Andreas. 1982. Autonomie und Anerkennung—Hegels Moralitätskritik im Lichte seiner Fichte-Rezeption. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Youssef, Carolyn M., and Fred Luthans. 2007. Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management 33: 774–800. [CrossRef] Yukl, Gary. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly 10: 285–305. [CrossRef] Yukl, Gary. 2013. Leadership in Organizations. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Zsolnai, Laszlo. 2002. The moral economic man. In Ethics in the Economy: Handbook of Business Ethics. Edited by LászlóZsolnai. Lausanne: Peter Lang Ltd., pp. 39–57. Zsolnai, Laszlo. 2018. Economic Actors and the Ultimate Goal of the Economy. In Economic Objects and the Objects of Economics. Edited by Peter Róna and LászlóZsolnai. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 151–59. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.