This article introduces the second of two special issues on philosophical approaches to leadership ethics. In this issue, the articles draw on the works of Plato, Niccolò Machiavelli, Michel Foucault, and Jürgen Habermas to explore questions in leadership ethics concerning leaders’ self-knowledge and self-constitution and their responsibilities to their followers. The articles in this issue demonstrate the potential of philosophy to deepen our understanding of leadership and ethics.

The business ethics and leadership literature has paid little attention to the analysis of virtue in the Socratic dialogues, but Plato’s account of virtue and persuasion offer relevant insights for business leaders. In the Republic, Plato’s description of five types of leaders offers a new perspective on leadership selection and development using the moral psychology of both virtuous and non-virtuous leaders. In this article, I explain Plato’s account of virtue and knowledge, his three-part moral psychology, the four cardinal virtues that virtuous leaders develop, and his continuum of five leader types. I apply Plato’s model to leadership issues in today’s corporate world and explain how the model can guide leaders, board members, and investors.

This article examines the place of Machiavelli’s Prince in the history of ethics and the history of leadership philosophy. Close scrutiny indicates that Machiavelli advances an ethical system for leadership that involves uprooting corruption and establishing rule of law. He draws on history and current affairs in order to obtain a realistic understanding of human behavior that forms a basis for a consequentialist ethics. While he claims a good leader might do bad things, this is in situations where necessity constrains a prince to choosing the “least bad” course of action. Furthermore, Machiavelli advocates winning the goodwill of followers through leadership as a source of power. Machiavelli’s leadership ethics has a sophistication not fully enjoyed by his reputation in management scholarship. He would not score as especially “Machiavellian” on the Mach IV. Many of his ideas contain seeds for theories that are now considered important for leadership today.

This article challenges the assumption that the source of ethical leadership is the well-intentioned leader of good character. Drawing from Michel Foucault’s critical philosophy, it argues that those aspiring to lead ethically must actively constitute themselves in order to become subjects who are free to exercise ethical agency. The practices of self-care (epimeileisthai sautou) and courageous speech (parrhesia) are introduced as means by which such self-constitution can be approached. The case of US President Barack Obama’s inability to close the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay serves as an illustrative device to ground Foucault’s ideas. The argument enriches a philosophically informed rendering of ethical leadership in three ways: by highlighting the role resistance plays in any leader’s attempts to achieve ethical ends, by demonstrating the importance of an orientation of critique on the part of those aspiring to lead ethically, and by revealing the importance of followers in realizing ethical outcomes.

The transition from modern to postmodern society leads to changing expectations about the purpose and responsibility of leadership. Habermas’s social theory provides a useful analytical tool for understanding current societal transition processes and exploring their implications for the responsibility of business vis-à-vis society. We argue that integrative responsible leadership, in particular, can contribute to the reconciliation of business with societal goals. Integrative responsible leadership understood in a Habermasian way is not only a strategic endeavor but also a communicative endeavor. An essential part of integrative responsible leadership in light of the current societal transformation processes is the facilitation of discourses about a shared base of norms and values. This is exemplified alongside current societal developments like the European migration crisis or the emerging nationalist and fundamentalist movements in some countries. We specify how and when leadership should resort to communicative action and discuss the implications for leadership.