Process Model Of Responsible Leadership

Background
This paper forms part of a research article aimed at conceptualising ‘responsible communication’. After a literature review the chosen codes were arranged into a process model. The updated version of this working model is included below for reference and context. Figure 1: Working process model
This paper addressed the model concepts of responsibility (1) via responsible leadership (A) and relation/communication (3) and strategy (4). The term relation fits on the process model with communication as will be dealt with in question 2 below and constitutes a slight alteration of the original process model proposed in paper one.
Introduction
In the first question the term responsibility is variously applied in organisational theory

The defining qualities of responsible leaders include ethics, morals, being authentic and staying true to these and to agreed and societal values and standards (Maak and Pless, 2006 ). A role based description of responsible leadership states “a responsible leader acts as a weaver of stakeholder relationships and as broker of social capital in the pursuit of responsible change.” (Maak, 2007:340 ). Again the definition assumes the meaning of responsible is clear.
A different approach indicates: “Irresponsible leadership was the primary cause of the global economic crisis of 2008”, and ‘responsible leadership’ is one response to the deficiencies in existing leadership frameworks and theories (Pless & Maak, 2011:3 ). Waldman and Galvin (2008:327 ) argue that other leadership theories lack the element of responsibility and that it is key because responsibility constitutes “…the heart of effective leadership.”. They also view responsibility as lying at the heart of effective leadership, adding for emphasis that “to not be responsible is to not be an effective leader.” They also argue for a relational approach to responsible leadership of which more

Siegel (2014:221 ) highlights the importance of the interdisciplinary aspect of responsible leadership given a debate about how responsibility should be defined, especially since any definition is heavily impacted by the context within which it takes place. While he supports the view that leaders are responsible only to shareholders to maximize profit, Waldman (2008:121 ) defines responsibility with a much larger scope that includes other stakeholders. The latter’s approach ties responsible leadership to disciplines rooted in stakeholder theory and indeed makes of the leader a champion of movements like corporate social responsibility, corporate social performance, and the likes (Maak & Pless,