If the culture does not support organizational learning and growth within that environment, then manipulative, even coercive, leadership would be necessary. Somewhere in between is leadership that is facilitative or persuasive. In any event, leaders must make their roles as integrity champions larger than life. Otherwise, they and their examples will be lost in the pressures of day-to-day life. They must speak in terms of vision, values, and integrity. In addition, when the leader is not involved in a part of the organization's business, they must know who speaks for values and integrity. Moreover, the style of ethical leadership will vary with the degree to which it reflects the Organizational Culture and the urgency of its situation in the environment.
• In its slightest demanding sense, ethical leadership is the stewardship that preserves the aspirations and culture of the organization.
• In its most demanding sense, it scans the community, develops, and
communicates organizational aspirations: the organization's core purpose, core values, and vision of the desired future and persuades, manipulates and coerces its stakeholders to comply until the culture has adapted.
• In between these extremes, ethical leadership balances (1) achieving the organizational aspirations that are realistically attainable at this time with (2) developing the organizational culture over time.
Different leadership styles are necessary to maintain or implement change in the organizational culture that is optimal for it to survive and thrive within the organization's context. The specific culture required, and the challenges it must face, will be suggested by the nature of its essential social responsibility and the dynamics of its larger community. There is no "one-size-fits-all" style of leadership for all organizations. For that matter, there is no such style for any one organization at all points in its organizational life.
Ethical leadership addresses the components of leadership through the mode appropriate to the occasion. These components are dynamic; they are systemic and fluid. Achieving organizational purpose through coercion, for example, was seen as an illegitimate exercise of authority, resulting in employees withholding information and the deterioration.