Dialogic leadership as ethics action (praxis) method

Dialogic leadership as ethics method respects, values, and works toward organizational objectives. However, in those situations where there may be conflicts and/or contradictions between what is ethical and what is in the material interest of individuals and/or the organization, the dialogic leader initiates discussion with others (peers, subordinates, superiors) about what is ethical with at least something of a prior ethics truth intention and not singularly a value neutral, constrained optimization of organizational objectives. Cases are considered where dialogic leadership: (1) helped build ethical organizational culture; (2) was effective; and, (3) as a by-product, produced integrative win-win results. Philosophical foundations for the method as well as differences between dialogic leadership and Theory X forcing leadership, Theory Y win-win integrative leadership, industrial democracy, participative management, action inquiry, and double-loop learning action science are explored. Limitations of the method are also explored.We must be still and still moving Into another intensity For a further union, a deeper communion(T. S. Eliot, 1944, p. 27) Richard P. Nielsen is a professor in the Department of Organizational Studies, School of Management, Boston College, 214 Fulton Hall, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167, (617)552-8858. Related articles of his include: Negotiating As An Ethics Action (Praxis) Strategy, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 1989; Changing Unethical Organizational Behavior, Academy of Management Executive 3, 2, 1989; Limitations of Ethical Reasoning As An Action (Praxis) Method, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 1988; Cooperative Strategy, Strategic Management Journal 9, 1988; and, Arendt's Action Philosophy and the Manager As Eichmann, Richard III, Faust or Institution Citizen, California Management Review 26, 3, Spring, 1984.