The Four Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership

The Four Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership

ABSTRACT. Theories of leadership have traditionally focused on leadership traits, styles, and situational factors that influence leader behaviors. We propose that The Four Umpires Model described herein, which examines how four leadership types view reality and perception, provides a useful example of an effective steward leader. We use the Five Beliefs Model identified by Edgar Schein and Peter Senge to frame the implicit assumptions underlying the core beliefs and mental models of each of the four umpires. We suggest that the stewardship model of Umpire Number Four, the Facilitating Idealist, is the best model for leadership of the four umpires described. In our review of the Four Umpires Model we also explain why it is importance for every leader to thoughtfully assess the assumptions that form the ethical basis for leadership decisions and actions.

Max De Pree, the former CEO of Herman Miller – the furniture company cited as one of the best places to work in America – has suggested, “The first task of the leader is to define Cam Caldwell is a doctoral student in Management in the College of Business at Washington State University and is a Thomas S. Foley Fellow at the university. His research interests are in the area of ethical leadership, stewardship theory, trustworthiness, and leadership development. Sheri J. Bischoff is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Organizational Leadership and Strategy Department at the Marriott School at Brigham Young University. Her research interests are in work/life balance, stress and cross-cultural management and leadership. She graduated from the University of Oregon. Ranjan Karri is an Assistant Professor of Management at Bryant College. His research interests are in the area of strategic management, strategic leadership and corporate social performance.

Cam Caldwell Sheri J. Bischoff Ranjan Karri

reality” (De Pree, 1989, p. 11). De Pree explains that the leader who understands the realities affecting her organization can more effectively provide leadership and can create an effective plan for organizational success. Yet, the clarity by which leaders accurately assess reality filters their assessments of what needs to be done and impacts their course of action. To De Pree, the leader who accurately perceives reality and shares key information about it honors her obligation to her stakeholders. De Pree describes the leader’s obligation as a “covenantal” relationship with profound ethical implications (De Pree, 1989, p. 53). The leader’s self-assessment of her capacity to interpret the world is as complex as her ability to interpret reality. Individually, our perceptive skills vary as a function of the complexity of factors involved and our own skills and abilities (Lord and Maher, 1990). Social cognition theory confirms that our individual perceptions make up the schema or lens through which we see the world (Fiske and Taylor, 1984). The capacity to quickly “make the calls” about organizational issues reflects key assumptions about one’s role and the nature of organizations (Boyle et al., 1998). The individual’s mental model is a critical factor that influences her ability to make quality decisions, in addition to creating a framework for the beliefs and values that ultimately determine her ethical framework. Leadership research abounds with studies and theories of leadership traits, styles, and situational factors that influence leader behaviors; far less has been written about the importance of the leader’s perspective in viewing reality and interpreting its meaning – although the social cognition literature is certainly related. One’s mental model is a

Journal of Business Ethics 36: 153–163, 2002. © 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

154

Cam Caldwell et al.

critical factor that influences the ability to make ethical decisions ( Jones, 1991). This paper introduces a framework for understanding variations in a leader’s cognitive lens – paying particular attention to the moral nature of that lens in suggesting that a leader’s view of reality and her perceptual capability have profound ethical implications. Our purpose is to present these four perspectives, indicating that one is ethically superior to the others.

Introducing the umpires In his book, Persuasion, Herbert W. Simons tells a story of three umpires that offers insights into the importance of the leadership perspective. Simons explains that the role of the umpire behind the plate is to call the balls and strikes – much as a leader is responsible to make key decisions in any organization. The first umpire says, “I calls them as they is.” This umpire essentially sees reality as black and white, or easily differentiated, and perceives that her perceptions are also black and white. For Umpire Number One the world is relatively simple and her role is to be an objective source of truth. The second umpire responds, “I calls them as I sees them.” For Umpire Number Two reality is black and white but his ability to differentiate is subjectively gray and therefore limited by potential perceptual errors. His commitment is to make a genuine best effort to serve others, but his role is decidedly neutral, instrumental, and unbiased toward a desired outcome. The third umpire then notes, “They ain’t nothin’ ’til I calls them.” Umpire Number Three suggests that reality is not always clear, but fortunately his perception is so good that he “sees” black and white – providing order in a chaotic world. Umpire Number Three has a self-appointed agenda based upon his determination as to what ought to be in a world beset with confusion and inadequate parameters. His role is to clarify what ought to be, based upon his own value set. Simons suggests that the point of this story is that a strike is a strike only in context with the formally defined but arbitrary standards of baseball authorities – personified in the baseball

setting by the umpires who make the calls and interpret how these rules apply (Simons, 1976). More generally stated, what is real is subject to both the characteristics of the event and the interpretation of that event. When perceptions vary, the framework of the umpire’s mental model determines how the rules of the game are interpreted and their impact on the ultimate outcomes. Karl Weick relates this same umpire vignette to the struggle that organizations face in their search for answers in a world “saturated with subjectivity, abstraction, guesses, making do, invention, and arbitrariness” (Weick, 1979, p. 5). Perceptions sometimes become a projection of predetermined assumptions about the world. We look for “facts” that validate our predispositions and biases, often to construct outcomes that make sense out of paradox, contradictions, and uncertainties. These insights from Simons and Weick are useful in clarifying meaning in a world where both perceptions and reality are sometimes uncertain. J. Bonner Ritchie suggested a fourth umpire to complement the other three, creating a useful two-by-two matrix for viewing leaders and their perceptions of what constitutes reality (Ritchie, 1999). Ritchie’s fourth umpire sees reality as gray and complex. In addition, this umpire acknowledges that his own perceptive skills are imprecise. Ritchie suggested that this fourth umpire selfdescribes, “I call them as I need them.” With apologies to Ritchie, we have slightly modified his framework for this umpire who we describe as saying, “I call them as we need them.” In our view, Umpire Number Four’s perceptions are affected by a set of moral values that reflect a deep commitment to the welfare of all stakeholders. Our emphasis from on this umpire an altruistic rather than a self-serving figure is a key distinguishing factor between the agent and the steward and is a critical element in the model that we propose. The two-by-two matrix shown below summarizes the position of each of these four umpires, presenting the perspective of each umpire within a framework where Reality and Perception are presented as either “Black and White” or “Gray and Complex.”

The Four Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership

Insights from the umpires As we have evaluated the positions of the four umpires, we have identified a set of underlying assumptions to frame their mental models. For each umpire we have suggested a descriptive title, a summary of our sense of their cognitive lens, and a set of accompanying mental perspectives.

Objective neutral Umpire Number One who “calls them as they is” the Objective Neutral. She views the world as unsullied by ambiguity, subjectivity, or confusion and characterized by clear differences, defined values, and precise distinctions. She perceives that her ability to interpret the world is uncluttered and free from either bias or false visions. Measurable facts and predetermined values determine what is correct. She perceives herself as results-oriented and principled. Morally, she perceives her role as indifferent to outcomes and legalistic. She values being right and views the role of the leader as someone whose goal is to impartially make correct objective decisions. Umpire One is more concerned with objective outcomes than with personal relationships. Objectivity demands arms-length relationships, procedural justice, and the ability to separate facts from emotions. To allow subjectivity to color one’s perspective contradicts the ground rules of

155

life that declare that accuracy and exactness are paramount. Separating one’s self from the subtle influences and obligations of relationships is a measure of one’s commitment to the pursuit of truth. The ability to put facts above people is a measure of both integrity and duty. Moral intensity is relative for her because she is indifferent to the impact of decisions that she makes beyond seeking to accurately describe the external world. This umpire claims no personal responsibility or ownership for decisions other than to be an objective and somewhat legalistic descriptor of a factual world. In providing an emphatic declaration of reality, she provides stability, certainty, and a sense of predictability. Umpire Number One speaks with authority. The “truth” she describes is externally defined, unequivocal, and unwavering. Ethical conflicts for Umpire Number One “do not exist” if she remains objective. Umpire Number One is principle-centered and represents a view of ethics and justice that is impartial and totally unbiased. It is “a view from nowhere” – dispassionate, value neutral, and impartial – which seeks universal truth regardless of its consequences (Donaldson and Durfee, 1999). In the pursuit of accuracy and objectivity, this umpire may miss subtleties about human issues or distinctions in situations that lie outside of her frame of reference.

Unbiased realist The umpire who “calls them as I sees them” is Umpire Number Two, the Unbiased Realist. Though he considers reality to be black and white, his perceptive ability is an imperfect shade of gray. This leader is open, balanced, dedicated, and reasonable and recognizes that unintended error or bias may occur despite all best efforts to avoid it. Well-meaning and committed to making a consistent best effort, this umpire nonetheless acknowledges that his lens may be clouded by random error and unintended distortion. Despite his limitations, his moral lens seeks to accurately assess external reality to the best of his ability – a pragmatic task that he strives to honor.

156

Cam Caldwell et al.

Implicit in his responsibilities is the obligation to faithfully comply with the rules that govern a situation. Although this umpire may not be perfect, his role demands a best effort and an unwavering commitment to established standards. His integrity is demonstrated by the degree to which he remains free from a subjective interest in the “players in the game.” Permitting relationships to color his perception could impede his ability to be unbiased, yet he realizes that his intimate involvement with others in making important “calls” affects the moral intensity of his decisions. Thus, maintaining social distance and minimizing relationships allow him to ensure objectivity in performing his role as an unbiased if imperfect arbiter. Umpire Number Two pursues a value neutral ethical model of pragmatic neutrality. His role is to be as objective, practical and as fair as possible. When an unbiased and well-meaning interpretation of the world is needed, he adds value by providing an objective best effort. His weaknesses, inevitably, are his perceptual limitation in interpreting the world coupled with reliance upon measurable criteria as the standard for all truth.

Subjective controller Umpire Number Three, the Subjective Controller, takes the position that balls and strikes “ain’t nothin’ ’til I calls them.” Morally, he believes that his lens is the correct one. He provides order and clarity for a complex world that struggles to define reality due to external ambiguities. His role is to interpret and declare reality according to his perception, definitions, and values – implicitly presuming his personal competence and his right to direct, control, and define the ground rules that govern others. He emphasizes competence and clarity – traits that he believes that he abundantly possesses. Organizational and interpersonal relationships are instrumental to helping Umpire Number Three to understand the framework in which he makes decisions and provides direction. Relationships may fulfill an instrumental role in carrying out what he perceives ought to occur.

Umpire Number Three provides the world with both order and meaning. His right to assert his will signifies his right to “power over” others (Graham, 1998). The implicit assumptions of his right to be the decision maker reflect this leader’s willingness to determine the priority of values and interests. The logical extension of that right reflects this umpire’s perspective that some players in the game of life intrinsically have more value than others. He perceives that it is his special right to assign rewards and benefits according to his determination as to whom and what matters most. Unquestionably he presumes that his authority is valued, his intent to provide guidance and direction will be recognized, and his impact in being a wise and competent arbiter will be acknowledged. Umpire Number Three acts within his own normative ethical definitions, based upon what he concludes to be most important. He is a relativist, grounded in the assumption that a person believing an act is morally correct helps to make it morally correct – defining ethically correct behavior based upon his own personal criteria (Donaldson and Durfee, 1999). In times of crisis or when order is sorely needed, Umpire Number Three has much to offer. His contribution derives from his ability to resolve uncertainty, provide decisive analysis, and take action. His weakness lies in the fundamental assumption of his superiority over others – and his presumption that he has the right to impose his perceptions with their attending implicit values.

Facilitating idealist Umpire Number Four is the Facilitating Idealist. Morally, she seeks the welfare of all stakeholders. We attribute to her the commitment to serve the situational and contingent needs of people, organizations, and external conditions. To her reality is complex and uncertain. Individual perception – including her own – is imperfect though well intended. She recognizes that perception and attribution may sometimes not be consciously motivated, recognized, or acknowledged. Within the context of a foggy and confusing

The Four Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership world, Umpire Number Four provides direction by making the “right” calls for each situation. Implicit in that responsibility is this umpire’s value set of what is and what ought to be. In seeking solutions that pursue the best interests of all parties, she is responsive, adaptive, flexible, and continually learning. She seeks to empower others through a focus on caring and character. Organizational and personal relationships are both important and she seeks solutions that reflect both interactional and procedural justice. Umpire Number Four’s understanding of what is “needed” in life is dependent upon her awareness of the players in the game of life, the systems and relationships that interplay, and a historical insight that connects the past to the future. This capacity to see the contextual fit of choices and their consequences is fundamental in her ability to make calls that contribute to the best interests of others. Relationships are important in understanding both individual needs and motivations. Umpire Four believes that all people have great intrinsic worth and are of fundamental importance. Where Umpire Three seeks “power over,” Umpire Four pursues “power with” – seeking integrated solutions that help to create a new and better reality for all concerned. “Unity not uniformity” is sought (Graham, 1998). She contributes value in situations that can benefit from her wisdom and insight and she maintains the ability to be flexible based upon situational needs. Her disadvantage lies in the fact that stakeholder interests may inevitably conflict. As a result, others may perceive her to be arbitrary rather than wise – particularly when they feel that their individual short-term interests may have been suboptimized.

Umpiring the umpires In presenting the Four Umpires Model we have identified the importance of the leaders’ personal perceptions – their personal schema influencing how they view the world. The framing process of their cognitive lenses profoundly impacts how leaders define their roles, the importance of others, and their core values. We present a

157

summary of the key beliefs of each of the umpires using a model adapted from Schein and Senge’s descriptions of organizational culture and leadership called the Five Beliefs Model.

The Five Beliefs Model Edgar Schein offers insights about the importance of using a framework for one’s assumptions and the impact of often unspoken “theories in use.” Behaviors, beliefs, values and assumptions are the key elements in organizational culture and they are generally derived from the leaders/founders of the organization (Schein, 1997). Schein and Senge have both identified fundamental beliefs that make up one’s assumptions about the world. These beliefs include: 1) Beliefs about self. Self-perception includes how we view our own talents, limits, individual worth, our goals, our roles in life, and the nature of our spiritual origin. 2) Beliefs about others. Beliefs about the key relationships in our lives are included here, as well as our conceptualizations about the nature of people and organizations, our responsibility to humanity in general, and the complexity of interrelationships tied up within our social identities. 3) Beliefs about the past. The nature of our present circumstances has been influenced by events, patterns, and values from the past that have created limits on individuals, organizations, and cultures. This belief set also includes what we believe about significant emotional events, key historical factors, and the duty that we owe the past. 4) Beliefs about current reality. The present reality in its simplicity and complexity is defined individually by each one of us. Current reality is an intricate and evolving marriage of what is and what we perceive, changing kaleidoscopically as we filter data and interpret information in a boundedly rational world. 5) Beliefs about the future. There is creative tension between our view of reality and

158

Cam Caldwell et al. what we ideally would like to create in the future. At the same time, this view of the future is governed by our perceptions about the nature of the limits imposed by external and internal potentialities. Our view of the future includes one conception of the relationship we have with deity and the implications of a hereafter.

The elements of this “Five Beliefs Model” cross over and bleed into one another. Each of the five beliefs is correlated with one’s individual views about the nature of reality and one’s ability to accurately decipher the world in which we live. Schein calls the tacit beliefs that make up the basic assumptions of individuals and groups “the essence of the culture” which gives meaning to values and patterns in human behavior and which creates patterns for our responses and actions. Reality, founded upon our beliefs and assumptions, is broken by Schein into physical, social, and individual reality with the test for

what is real differing according to the level at which it is viewed (Schein, 1997). Peter Senge emphasizes the importance of these belief sets as the foundation of our values. Together these beliefs and values make up our framework for viewing the world as an interrelated system. Implicit in the mental model of the world is a set of ethical expectations about our individual roles, our place in society, and the priorities that we consider as we pursue what we consider to be fundamentally important (Senge, 1994). The Five Beliefs Model indicated in the following table provides a representative belief set that characterizes each of the umpires. As Schein indicates, one of the realities of “theories in use” or foundation beliefs is that they are not formally articulated but are often assumed. Whether beliefs are consciously and formally articulated or not, however, each individual’s core beliefs form the basis for his or her fundamental values (Schein, 1997). Senge

The Four Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership confirms that the tacit nature of our key beliefs is a key problem and a barrier in effectively acting upon those beliefs. When we are unaware of our mental models, they are both unexamined and unchanged while nonetheless substantially impacting our decisions and our ability to be effective (Senge, 1994). We see the Five Beliefs Model as a useful descriptive tool for summarizing the perspectives of the umpires. As noted by Schein and Senge these five beliefs are the foundation for core values in leaders and organizations. As Schein has noted, the failure to consciously focus on underlying beliefs causes individuals and organizations to overlook key assumptions that serve as the foundation of their values. This insensitivity is often unintentional, unconscious, and unacknowledged but nonetheless has a powerful impact in guiding the behavior of individuals and organizations. For leaders the impact of these core beliefs largely determines their ethical behaviors (Schein, 1997). Understanding the five beliefs of each of the umpires provides a clearer insight into the ethical framework of their core values.

Comparing the four umpires Our bias is that Umpire Number Four most closely models the characteristics of an empowering and ethical leader. Umpire Number Four demonstrates a perspective that we propose to be representative of the steward’s perspective. A steward has been described as demonstrating a commitment to the best interests of the organization, as opposed to an agent, whose interests may conflict with the organization and its principals (Hill and Jones, 1992). A steward rises above the level of an agent and is committed to the welfare of all stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). A growing body of empirical evidence supports the theory that organizations are best served long-term when they demonstrate a commitment to the needs of all stakeholders (Pfeffer, 1998; Collins and Porras, 1994). We propose that Umpire Number Four’s pursuit of the integrative solution is the preferred model compared to the other umpires.

159

Umpire Number Four’s situational balance is superior to the objective impartiality of Umpire Number One. The black and white world of Umpire Number One reflects a bias toward measurement, financial results, and quantifiability that Pfeffer describes as “the tendency to confuse analytical rigor with management skill.” This focus on the measurable and quantifiable undermines the interpretive insights and intuitive judgment that accompany the decision processes of experts in organizations. As a result of this bias toward the quantifiable, the expert’s tacit knowledge – the “real basis of their judgments and decisions” is overlooked and decisions focus around “managing by the numbers” rather than based upon the important factors that are key to an organization’s success” (Pfeffer, 1998, pp. 152–154). From an ethical perspective, Umpire Number One’s primary ethical purpose is to be a totally objective evaluator of the “facts.” Her values center on exactness and precision, but the expertise that she offers cannot always be communicated perfectly. If she is faithful and honors her obligation to accurately observe the external world, she has fulfilled her ethical duty – yet in pursuing measurable excellence the leader who follows Umpire Number One’s framework may be unable to fully contribute to the welfare of the organization she seeks to benefit. We acknowledge the commitment to fairness that is characteristic of Umpire Number Two, but are concerned with Umpire Two’s basic assumption that reality is black and white. Although universal principles may apply in our lives, the notion of an objective reality imposes a framework that suggests the ability to define the world according to a precise and absolute standard. Circumstances and conditions, the nature of relationships, and one’s assumptions about the superordinate goals of life suggest that we make choices to accomplish specific purposes. The outcomes sought help us to determine the behaviors that are most instrumental to achieving these desired ends. As noted in our description of Umpire Two, his mental framework presupposes that those ends are well defined. However, these ends seem mechanistic, impersonal, and unresponsive to the needs of individuals and

160

Cam Caldwell et al.

unique conditions. Implicit in the value assumptions of Umpire Two is a commitment to the goal of precision and measurability that also limits Umpire Number One. Umpire Two’s sense of calling balls and strikes “as he sees them” may preclude him from understanding the factors that best serve organizations and individuals. To those who would argue that the role of the umpire/leader is to be objective, fair, and impartial, we would respond that those criteria are important to Umpire Number Four as well. We perceive Umpire Number Four as more able, however, to consider all factors – including human situations and unique situational circumstances – in the decision-making process. In Umpire Two’s pursuit of objectivity, we see him as being incomplete in his awareness of the potentially vital human factors that can affect organizational conditions. Rather than defining the world in terms of a defined black and white value set, Umpire Number Four is inclined to create outcomes that meet the needs of all of the affected stakeholders – pursuing their long-term self-interests. We acknowledge that there are some situations when “absolute” principles do govern and serve the highest interests of all parties. In those cases, we anticipate that both Umpire Two and Umpire Four would be likely to come to the same conclusion. However, we interpret Umpire Number Two to be less flexible and sensitive to the longterm needs of all parties than Umpire Number Four. Umpire Number Three’s focus on his ability to impose order and control has a useful purpose in situations where ground rules are lacking and where focus is needed. That role is clearly needed, and we see both Umpires Three and Four as being capable of providing that direction. There is potential value in the direction that Umpire Three can provide to a cloudy and uncertain world. Our concern with the mental model of Umpire Number Three lies in our inference that the rules of his game seem focused on the umpire’s judgment rather than the needs of all the players. We perceive Umpire Four as offering a perspective that extends beyond the need for simply providing order to include providing contextual depth that takes into

account the needs and relationships of the parties and that is committed to their long-term welfare, growth, and wholeness. Where Umpire Number Three would be limited to providing direction and control, we think Umpire Number Four would also provide sustenance and support. Umpire Number Three’s ethical framework is to honor his role in the decision process, but that role has an instrumental focus centered on the need to provide order in an unclear world. The ethical responsibility of Umpire Number Three is to take full advantage of his perceptual competence to provide clarity, meaning, and direction to a cloudy world. Ethically, he honors his duty when he ensures that the world is guided along the path that he concludes to be best. By definition, his lens is not clouded and his abilities are superior analytically and normatively. His obligation is complete when he imposes order and control upon a world that depends upon him for his good judgment.

The Fourth Umpire as a classic steward We advocate Umpire Number Four as being the preferred model for ethical leadership and perceive her to be a classic example of steward leadership. Block describes stewardship as “elevating service over self-interest” and describes the role of the steward as committed to the welfare of others (Block, 1993). The steward is a servant leader who seeks to create a “covenantal community” (Givovanni, 1992). We picture Umpire Number Four as a steward who has firmly demonstrated that she is committed to the best interests of other people, and whose beliefs and values are articulated, known, and closely followed. We concur with the position of Edgar Schein that alignment between behaviors, espoused values, and fundamental assumptions is critical to organizational congruence and the trustworthiness of leader (Schein, 1997). The steward’s consistency between values claimed and values followed allows leaders to be credible, establishes a bond of trust, and honors implied ethical commitments. The stewardship perspective is not only morally and normatively superior but it is

The Four Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership also more likely to achieve the greatest long-term benefits for all stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Stewardship theory defines situations in which managers and leaders are not motivated by selfinterest but by motives aligned with their organization and its principals (Davis et al., 1997). The steward pursues the interests of many stakeholders, based upon a morally established duty owed and a fiduciary obligation (Gibson, 2000). The steward leader acknowledges that each stakeholder “has a right not to be treated as a means to some end” (Freeman, 1984). Despite the multitude of issues facing an organization, the steward is motivated by deep intrinsic values based upon a moral theory that a prima facie priority of interests is owed to those who have a stake in the organization’s success. The underlying mechanism is that the steward is driven by an underlying social contract (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1993). The stakeholder has something at risk and the steward honors the obligation to avoid exposing stakeholders to undue harm or loss (Clarkson, 1995). The ethical position of Umpire Number Four focuses on this complex understanding of her role. She seeks the best interests of all stakeholders in a world clouded by uncertainty. Ethically she must abide by standards of fairness in her commitment to the welfare of all parties. That collective and individual welfare is her normative and instrumental purpose. As a decision-maker and leader, she calls them “as we need them” to achieve the best for others, despite the limits of “bounded moral rationality” imposed by the imperfections of perception (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999). David A. Whetten provides the model shown below for considering the relative ethical position of people and organizations. As noted, ethical intentions and ethical behavior may be classified on a relative scale that categorizes behavior as ethically detrimental, ethically neutral, or ethically virtuous. Whetten advocates that individuals and organizations assess the impacts of their behaviors to strive to make them ethically virtuous for all stakeholders – consistent with classic stewardship theory. In many cases, mental models limit the ability of actors to see ethical

161

assessment as extending beyond simply prohibiting ethically detrimental behavior. Whetten’s hypothesis and stewardship theory suggest that being content with ethically neutral behavior suboptimizes benefits to stakeholders and fails to honor the leader’s full obligation (Whetten, 1996). Ethically Detrimental

Ethically Neutral

Ethically Virtuous

As we classify Umpire Number Four, we suggest that her position fits well with Whetten’s model and is clearly committed to an Ethically Virtuous position. In contrast, the mental models of the other umpires limit them to an Ethically Neutral position. Umpire Number Four does more than calling them “as she needs them” as an agent would do – she makes the call “as others need them” in the classic steward’s role. We note the growing body of literature that confirms that treating employee, customers, vendors, and other stakeholders well is ultimately in the best long-term interests of stockholders (Collins and Porras, 1994; Pfeffer, 1998). Ultimately, Umpire Number Four honors what Donaldson and Dunfee call the ultimate test for an ethical norm: “whether it is accepted by a clear majority of the community as standing for an ethical principle” (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999, p. 39).

Implications of the umpires There are several implications that can be derived from The Four Umpires model. First, the model identifies the value of thoughtfully assessing one’s own views of reality and one’s perceptual capacity in order to understand the implicit effects of those views on one’s ethical framework for leadership. Second, the model demonstrates that one’s view of reality and one’s perceptual capacities need not always be clear and precise to be effective or ethical as a leader. Third, the model identifies the ethical virtue of the stewardship model, as personified by Umpire Number Four.

162

Cam Caldwell et al.

Fourth, this model reinforces the power of the Five Beliefs Model of Schein and Senge as a useful tool in assessing one’s core beliefs and the values and ethical implications that flow naturally from those beliefs. The Four Umpires model is implicitly correlated with the five beliefs. Both models demonstrate the importance of tacit assumptions in our mental frameworks which we may overlook as we unconsciously construct our ethical standards. The power of the Five Beliefs Model of Schein and Senge is a useful tool in assessing one’s core beliefs and the values and ethical implications that flow naturally from those beliefs. As Max De Pree suggests, the leader who defines reality has a profound ethical responsibility to those she serves. Closely examining the beliefs and assumptions which one has about reality – including one’s fundamental beliefs that are tacit and implicit – is a useful and ethically necessary task for all who seek to lead.

Research directions To explore the usefulness of the Four Umpires model as a framework for understanding more about leadership, we have developed an instrument that identifies leaders according to their attitudes regarding both reality and perception. We seek to use this instrument to continue our research with the Four Umpires model. We seek to test whether there is a difference in the way that stakeholders view the leadership behaviors and values of individual leaders, and whether that perception correlates with differences in the leaders’ mental models about reality and perception. We are also interested in assessing in greater depth the relationships between the Four Umpires model and stewardship theory. We are specifically interested in identifying the measurable qualities, traits, and behaviors of leaders who establish an effective stewardship relationship with organizational stakeholders. By studying this topic we seek to understand more clearly the normative and instrumental factors that have been identified as related to stewardship theory as well as the impacts of stewardship concepts

on organizational effectiveness. This interest includes exploring more deeply our ethical lens, including gathering detailed information about how leaders in each of the Four Umpire quadrants view their ethical roles and responsibilities. Conclusion In this paper we have presented the model of the Four Umpires as a framework for understanding the leader’s perspective more fully. In our presentation of this model, we have suggested that each of these umpires unconsciously uses the framework of Schein and Senge’s Five Beliefs Model in framing their self-identity. That perspective appears to have a significant impact on the ethical responsibility of leaders represented by each of the quadrants of the Four Umpires model. Our position is that Umpire Number Four, the Facilitating Idealist, who calls balls and strikes “as we need them” conforms to the stewardship model. We interpret this leader as seeking integrative solutions that benefit all stakeholders. Peter Block noted that there is a deep hunger in our society for a world where people truly care for one another, where people are treated humanely and helped in their personal growth, where workers and customers are treated fairly, and where leaders can be trusted to serve the needs of the many rather than the few (Block, 1993). Together with Block, we seek a model of leadership based upon teamwork, community, and ethical and caring behavior. This emerging approach to leadership and service encompasses the concepts of stewardship which are normatively ethical and which we think best serve people and organizations long-term. References Block, Peter: 1993, Stewardship, Choosing Service Over Self-Interest (Berret Koehler). Boyle, B. A., R. F. Dahlstrom and J. J.Kellaris: 1998, ‘Points of Reference and Individual Differences as Sources of Bias in Ethical Judgments’, Journal of Buisiness Ethics 17(5), 517–525. Collins, James C. and Jerry I. Porras: 1994, Built to

The Four Umpires: A Paradigm for Ethical Leadership Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (Harper Business, New York). Davis, James H., F. David Schoorman and Lex Donaldson: 1997, ‘Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management’, Academy of Management Review 20(1) ( January), 20–47. De Pree, Max: 1989, Leadership is an Art (Dell, New York). Donaldson, Thomas and Thomas W. Dunfee: 1994, ‘Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory’, American Management Review 19(2), 252–284. Donaldson, Thomas: 1999, ‘Making Stakeholder Theory Whole’, The Academy of Management Review 24(2), 237–241. Donaldson, Thomas and Thomas W. Dunfee: 1999, Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Harvard Business School Press, Boston). Donaldson, T. and Lee E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review 20, 65–91. Gibson, Kevin: 2000, ‘The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory’, Journal of Business Ethics (August), 245–257. Fiske, S. T. and S. E. Taylor: 1984, Social Cognition (Random House, New York). Graham, Pauline (ed.): 1995, Mary Parker Follett – Prophet of Management: A Celebration of Writings from the 1920s (Harvard Business School Press, Boston). Hill, Charles W. L. and Thomas M. Jones: 1992, ‘Stakeholder-Agency Theory’, The Journal Of Management Studies 29(2), 131–155 (Oxford; Mar 1992). Jones, Thomas M.: 1991, ‘Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An IssueContingent Model’, Academy of Management Review 16(2), 366–395. Jones, Thomas M.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review 20, 404–437. Jones, Thomas M. and Andrew C. Wickes: 1999, ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review 24(2) (April), 206–221. Lord, R. G. and K. J. Maher: 1990, ‘Alternative Information-Processing Models and Their Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice’, Academy of Management Review 15(1), 9–28. Kouzes, James and Barry Posner: 1993, Credibility ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Pfeffer, Jeffrey: 1998, The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

163

Preston, Lee: 1998, ‘Agents, Stewards, and Stakeholders’, Academy of Management Review 23(1), 9. Ritchie, J. Bonner: 1998, Conversation with Dr. Ritchie in his office at Brigham Young University in November, 1999 emanating from classroom discussions in his course on Conflict Resolution, Spring, 1998. Schein, Edgar: 1997, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edn. ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Shankman, Neil A.: 1999, ‘Reframing the Debate between Agency and Stakeholder Theories of the Firm’, Journal of Business Ethics 19(4), 319–334. Simons, Herbert W.: 1976, Persuasion (AddisonWesley, Reading, MA). Senge, Peter M.: 1992, ‘Mental Models: Putting Strategic Ideas into Practice’, Planning Review 20(2) (March-April), 4–12. Senge, Peter M., Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard B. Ross and Bryan J. Smith: 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (Doubleday, New York). Sergiovanni, Thomas J.: 1992, Moral Leadership ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco). Simons, Herbert W.: 1976, Persuasion: Understanding, Practice, and Analysis (Random House, New York). Trevino, Linda K.: 1992, ‘Moral Reasoning and Business Ethics: Implications for Research, Education and Management’, Journal of Business Ethics (May), 445–462. Weick, Karl E.: 1979, The Social Psychology of Organizing (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA). Whetten, David A.: 1996, Models of Ethics presentation made to the 25th Class Reunion at Brigham Young University, October, 1996.

Cam Caldwell Washington State University, Todd 342, Pullman, WA 99164-4736, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Sheri J. Bischoff Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S.A. Ranjan Karri Bryant College, Smithfield, RI, U.S.A.