arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Philosophical Anthropology and Adaptive Ethical Leadership Paradox: Unveiling the Dark Side—A Systematic Review

Devadoss F. et al.

Management and Labour Studies2026https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042x261421683article
AJG 1ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Although ethical leadership has been referred to as the basis of ethical judgements, the newer research identifies a perplexing conflict: It can be both an ethical agent and something that creates an ethical dilemma. The present study investigates these contradictions in an interdisciplinary context by leveraging data in philosophical anthropology, organizational behaviour and cognitive psychology. We highlight some of the limits of existing ethical leadership frameworks and use the PRISMA framework and a tailored TCCM model to connect 46 peer-reviewed Scopus and ABDC articles published from 2000 to 2024. The models are inaccurate when contextual boundaries, ethical nuance and implications of new technology are considered. We offer the adaptive ethical leadership paradox (AELP) model in exchange, which remaps ethical leadership as a dynamic negotiation among four interdependent factors: (a) the ethical dissonance cycle, (b) the situational ethics modulator, (c) the cognitive reflexivity loop and (d) the AI and digital ethics layer. The model is superior to conventional descriptive literature reviews because it provides a novel theoretical account of ethical leadership. It addresses static ethical models and introduces a new, interdisciplinary model for leadership ethics. Drawing on philosophical, psychological and technology ethics, the AELP model provides guidance for understanding leadership ethics, the governance of AI and organizational dynamics—all areas where consolidating knowledge from different disciplines could prove valuable.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042x261421683

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{devadoss2026,
  title        = {{Philosophical Anthropology and Adaptive Ethical Leadership Paradox: Unveiling the Dark Side—A Systematic Review}},
  author       = {Devadoss F. et al.},
  journal      = {Management and Labour Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042x261421683},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Philosophical Anthropology and Adaptive Ethical Leadership Paradox: Unveiling the Dark Side—A Systematic Review

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.