Character as a feature of leadership is becoming more relevant as organisational complexity increases. Social media and newspapers regularly report instances of lapses of integrity, dishonesty and a general lack of character (Newstead, Dawkins, Macklin, & Martin, 2019). Examples of leadership scandals internationally include the actions of the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Enron and Arthur Anderson (Mclaughlin, 2013). Locally, Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste has been alleged to misrepresent and misreport financial information (Naudé, Hamilton, Ungerer, Malan, & De Klerk, 2018). It is possible that many employees today have similar workplace experiences of leadership lacking in character.

Well-developed leader character could contribute to effective leadership and sustainable performance in organisations. This notion of the importance of character is widely held in leadership research (Palanski & Yammarino, 2011; Sosik, Gentry, & Chun, 2012). Crossan et al. (2017) confirmed that leader character should be considered as important as leader competencies in organisations. This focus on character can be achieved by embedding leader character in systems and processes such as recruitment and selection, performance management and leadership development (Crossan et al., 2017; Seijts, Crossan, & Carleton, 2017).

Leaders deemed to possess character have much in common. Fairness, justice, care and integrity are all given as examples of leader character (Newstead et al., 2019). Whilst research proposes various definitions of character, the core seems to centre on integrity (Conger & Hollenbeck, 2010; Kaiser & Hogan, 2010; Palanski & Yamarino, 2011). This notion of integrity as core to character is supported by Sosik et al. (2012) who hold integrity to be a key dimension of character and a contributor to executive performance and effectiveness. It has been argued that the absence of integrity could result in leadership becoming coercive (Newstead et al., 2019). Research by Kaiser and Hogan (2010) estimated a range of 10% to 20% of thousands of leaders assessed to have low integrity. It is for these reasons that integrity has been selected as the focus of this study.

The development of leaders’ awareness of integrity can be achieved through various means. This view is supported by Kegan (1982) who stated that individuals develop progressively more complex understandings of their environment through their accumulated experiences. Leaders can enhance their awareness of integrity through deliberated interventions such as training and mentoring and through relationships and challenging experiences (McKenna & Campbell, 2011; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seijts, Gandz, Crossan, & Reno, 2015; Sosik et al., 2012). In addition, coaching of leaders is considered one of many appropriate interventions for leader development aimed at improving leader behaviours and performance (Anthony, 2017; Grant, 2017a). According to Cox, Bachkirova and Clutterbuck (2014), coaching is fast becoming a preferred activity serving the learning and development aims of organisations.

Development of leaders’ awareness of integrity as a dimension of character is neither well defined nor regularly discussed (Seijts et al., 2015). If leader integrity is important for an effective leadership and sustainable performance, then it is imperative that organisations provide appropriate support to leaders to develop their awareness of integrity. It is not well known what key elements are best suited for the development of awareness of integrity in leaders. With this in mind, the research question that guided this study was: What are key elements to develop the awareness of integrity in leaders resulting in positive leader outcomes? Insight into these elements could provide guidelines for facilitating the development of leaders’ awareness of integrity in organisations to support positive leader outcomes.

This article provides theoretical perspectives related to leader integrity and business coaching. This is followed by a discussion on interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as the methodology employed to gather data from six leaders at director level. The article is concluded with a discussion of the findings and the provision of guidelines to facilitate the development of leaders’ awareness of integrity.

In this review, a definition of leader integrity is proposed, followed by current views in literature on the development of leaders’ awareness of integrity. Business coaching as intervention to develop leaders’ awareness of integrity includes coaching with a solution-focussed cognitive-behavioural (SF-CB) model.

The main theoretical perspectives informing this research draws from both the leadership and coaching fields, as illustrated in Figure 1:

Numerous references in the literature refer to integrity as character virtue. Consider Palanski and Yammarino’s (2007) leadership literature review in which they found 20 sources citing integrity to imply moral virtue. Integrity is a character strength signalling the virtue of courage (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). If good character is made of a set of virtues there is every reason to expect that the virtue of integrity would be tied in with related virtues such as fairness, honesty, authenticity and compassion (Macintyre, 2007). It is therefore understood that integrity is a necessary but not a stand-alone part of character (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007).

Virtues can be classified as either adjunctive or substantive in nature. Adjunctive virtues are neither good nor bad in a moral context but are still necessary for desirable behaviour. Integrity should be categorised as an adjunctive virtue. Examples include integrity, courage and steadfastness. In comparison, substantive virtues are themselves morally good and include honesty and fairness (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007, 2011). Put differently, to demonstrate honesty or fairness is to act inherently in a morally principled way, whereas acting with integrity is associated with alignment between words and deeds (Gentry et al., 2013). Integrity as adjunctive virtue is considered here as an issue of personal identity and not necessarily as a moral virtue (Becker, 2009).

Leader integrity can be defined as acting in accordance with stated values, following through on promises, and using ethical considerations to guide decisions and action. This fits well with the conceptualisations of Palanski and Yammarino and Six, De Bakker and Huberts, as well as with the view of Peterson and Seligman that integrity is at the crossing between honesty and authenticity (Palanski & Yammarino, 2011; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Six, De Bakker, & Huberts, 2007). The operationalised version would include behaving consistently with ethical standards, even in difficult situations; others see it as behaving in a way that is consistent with their personal values and beliefs (Crossan et al., 2017; Seijts et al., 2015; Seijts & Gandz, 2018). Integrity is also conceptualised as word–act congruence and a moral perspective of what is right or wrong (Six et al., 2007). Organisational and leadership literature has been more flexible about the meaning of integrity and seems to have settled on a non-moral definition (Bauman, 2013).

The impact of leaders with issues of integrity is worthy of consideration. Research on leadership theories supports the claim that integrity is a prerequisite for leadership. The findings indicate that leaders deemed to have high integrity are more likely to win the trust of followers (Kaiser & Hogan, 2010). Research by Grahek, Thompson and Toliver (2010) found leaders’ personal integrity to be critically important as reported by both leaders and followers. There is a clear need for leaders to develop and practise leading with a virtue such as integrity (Newstead et al., 2019). The development of integrity in leaders starts with awareness.

Awareness of integrity can be developed through various means. Leadership research has shown that integrity is a function of lived experiences as well as cultural and environmental influences, suggesting that it can be developed (Hannah & Avolio, 2011; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). It is not suggested that an awareness of the importance of integrity will lead to only virtuous decision-making. Even leaders with strong and well-developed character could exhibit unethical behaviours (Crossan et al., 2017). It is, however, possible that decisions will be better informed.

Leader development is concerned with interventions to develop the leader’s character, skills and competencies. Leadership is contextual and it is important to consider the appropriate intervention. What works to move one leader to action in a specific context might not work to move another leader to action in a different context (Newstead et al., 2019). The ultimate aim of learning, training and development (including coaching) is to maximise human potential and increase performance (Cox et al., 2014; Jones, Woods, & Guillaume, 2016). Training and development as interventions could be measured through cognitive, skill-based and affective outcomes (Jones et al., 2016). This could be achieved by capitalising on strengths and eliminating shortcomings (Riggio, 2008). Research found evidence that coaching could deliver on cognitive, skill-based and effective outcomes. It was suggested that potential issues in training transfer can use the support of coaching to achieve a sustainable change (Jones et al., 2016). Grant (2017b) believed that organisations and leaders are looking towards coaching to deal with increasing complexity and uncertainty. Specific to integrity as dimension of character, research suggests a positive influence of business coaching on character development in leaders (Ely et al., 2010; Grant, Green, & Rynsaardt, 2010; MacKie, 2014). Finally, the supportive relationship between coach and client, the setting of personally valued individual goals and coach support during times of setback all indicate coaching as appropriate intervention in addressing development of awareness (Grant, 2014).

Increasing awareness of the importance of certain behaviours through coaching can lead to immediate change (Welch, Grossaint, Reid, & Walker, 2014). This view is supported by Avolio and Gardner (2005) who suggested that reflection increases awareness of leaders’ personal values, beliefs, feelings and actions in the organisational context. Coaching as a selected intervention should therefore include specific factors contributing to permanent learning. A literature review by Rekalde, Landeta and Albizu (2015) included various success factors deemed important in coaching. Key factors were identified across five sections: coach, client, coaching relationship, process and organisational context. The findings support results from other studies in identifying a common factor required for sustainable change, namely the coaching relationship (De Haan, Culpin, & Curd, 2011; Grant, 2017a).

Leaders who have received coaching are more likely to model and provide individualised consideration to their supporters. This is achieved through developing the leaders’ ability to build trust, act with principle and integrity and inspire and develop others. Therefore, business coaching is deemed effective in developing character as part of leadership development (MacKie, 2014).

There are many definitions of business coaching. Business coaching is concerned with the development of managerial leaders and teams in a way that is sustainable, measurable and effective (Stout-Rostron, 2012). Grover and Furnham (2016) explained that business coaching is a broad term referring to any process whereby an individual receives coaching to improve performance within an organisation. Cox et al. (2014) defined coaching as a development process involving a structured process and tools to promote sustainable change. In business coaching the role of the organisation, not only as a sponsor but also as a partner, is significantly different from the focus on the individual needs of the client in counselling (Cox et al., 2014; Kahn, 2011). The following definition of business coaching is offered for the purpose of this study. It is typically about assisting clients in improving their self-management skills to achieve purposeful positive change in the workplace and is therefore considered to be goal-focussed (Grant, 2012; Passmore, 2007). The role of a coach is to foster change by supporting the client through a self-regulatory sequence with the aim of stimulating sustained well-being and functioning (Grant, 2003, 2017a). In short, coaching is essentially about fostering self-directed changes in clients to make them feel and function better. According to Cox et al. (2014), there are many evidence-based approaches to coaching, as set out in Table 1.

A study by De Haan et al. (2011) found that the technique or approach used by the coach was less important than the relationship with and qualities of the coach. Arguably, all of the above approaches could support individual learning experiences (Cox et al., 2014). The use of a solution-focussed approach in organisations is supported by empirical evidence (Grant, 2003; Theeboom, Beersma, & Van Vianen, 2014). A solution-focussed approach was therefore considered an appropriate process to achieve change.

Various theories are linked to solution-focussed coaching. A solution-focussed approach is aimed at facilitating purposeful positive change (Grant, 2012), and there is an overlap with positive psychology, with regard to positive experience, positive personality and positive communities (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). One of the theorists of positive psychology, Barbara Fredrickson, proposed that positive emotions broaden our thought–action ranges and build long-term personal resources. Her broaden-and-build theory holds that positive emotions generally expand the range of thoughts and actions (Fredrickson, 2001). The link is that solution-focussed techniques concentre directly on positive emotions. In line with positive psychology, a solution-focussed approach seems to be distinctively placed to support the building of both positive emotions and extended thought–action ranges (Glass, 2009). Both positive psychology and solution-focussed coaching are ultimately concerned with helping clients to flourish and have a better future (Bannink & Jackson, 2011).

Self-determination theory is relevant to solution-focussed coaching as both have an autonomy-supportive facilitation approach. The presuppositions, principles and techniques of a solution-focussed approach have the effect of supporting the perception of autonomy, competence and relatedness of clients which, according to self-determination theory, are keys to support self-determination (Visser, 2009). Self-determination theory is a psychological theory of human behaviour and motivation, which has been empirically tested and applied in many areas including work (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Solution-focussed coaching is also a constructivist, humanistic approach that concentrates on the strengths of the client (Grant, 2003). A coaching’s focus on the development of personal strengths and goal attainment rather than problem analysis is ensured by incorporating a solution-focussed perspective into a cognitive-behavioural framework (Grant et al., 2010). Cognitive-behavioural approaches to coaching recognise the interaction between one’s behaviour, thoughts, feelings and the environment and that goal attainment is best facilitated by understanding the relationship between these four domains (Grant, 2003). According to Grant (2017a), initial coaching conversations focus on identifying personally meaningful goals to increase commitment to the goal and should precede the solution-focussed aspect of coaching. Such intense cognitive processing facilitates thinking that supports the formulation of options and action plans (Grant, 2017a).

Continued pressure on individuals to perform is associated with increased levels of stress-related fatigue and even burnout (Grant, 2017a). Research has shown that the SF-CB coaching model is both meaningful and relevant in this context (Grant, 2017a). Improved performance and well-being are only possible if sustainable change in behaviour takes place. Kolb’s experiential learning cycle supports transforming experience into learning (Kolb, 1984). A solution-focussed approach is associated with increased resilience in leaders, leading to an increased probability of maintaining self-regulation of the client after coaching. Various studies have provided useful evidence that solution-focussed coaching has value in goal achievement (Grant et al., 2010).

The core of the solution-focussed approach is the premise that the coach should help the client find out what is already working for him or her and do more of it and to find out what is not working and do something different (Bannink & Jackson, 2011; McKergow, 2016). The key underpinning presuppositions for a solution-focussed approach are a solution-focussed view as opposed to a dysfunctionality view of the problem, a future rather than a past or present orientation, a focus on disengaging from problems and actively constructing solutions, the articulation of preferred outcomes, the development of action steps towards goal attainment and acknowledging the strengths of the client (Grant, 2012).

The key principles to help the coach navigate the coaching process, according to Grant (2017a), include focussing on solutions by using reframing to change the perception of the client. They further entail focussing on what is working and encouraging the client to do more of the same: holding the client as equal to the partnership and viewing positive change on the part of the client as inevitable. A solution-focussed approach is a first-person approach, with the coach focussing on the personal experience and imagination of the client and not on seeking to understand. It is about staying on the surface with the client and viewing each case as unique (McKergow, 2016).

This approach supports behaviour change in pursuit of a preferred outcome. Grant (2012) asserted that a positive change is brought about when the client uses own resilience, strengths and resources to identify ways to achieve goals. The setting of specific goals of certain levels of difficulty has been linked to increased productivity, performance and organisational profitability (Grant, 2012; Grover & Furnham, 2016). A solution-focussed approach, according to Grant (2003), contributes to cognitive and behavioural changes, supporting goal attainment.

Table 2 shows a summary of the ways in which leaders’ outcomes may be facilitated as a result of increased awareness of the importance of integrity, through coaching with a strengths-based approach.

The participants were asked to talk about the contribution of coaching to develop their awareness of the importance of integrity. Their accounts clustered around three superordinate themes: a safe space to explore, a focus on positive outcomes and time as factor.

The participants reported on the contribution of coaching to leaders’ awareness of the importance of integrity. Their accounts clustered around three superordinate themes: doing the right thing consistently, experimenting with change and impact of reflection.

Integrity as a dimension of character is relevant in the current South African organisational context. Leader integrity is imperative for effective leadership and sustainable performance.

This study identified the elements of coaching with a strengths-based approach, specifically an SF-CB approach, which suggests it to be an appropriate intervention for the development of awareness. The following coaching elements therefore support the development of leaders:

This research also highlighted that development in leader awareness could result in positive leader outcomes:

This study contributes to the body of leadership and coaching literature on leaders’ awareness of the importance of integrity and strengths-based coaching. The findings highlight the efficacy of using a strengths-based approach – specifically an SF-CB approach – in increasing leaders’ awareness and driving positive leader outcomes.

The findings of this study have implications for organisations and coaches. The findings support the selection of coaching as a development intervention to achieve successful leader outcomes and could support human resources professionals deciding on an appropriate intervention for leader development. Furthermore, coaches could base their selection of approach on the evidence supporting the use of an SF-CB coaching approach in the context of developing leaders’ awareness of the importance of integrity.

Further quantitative or qualitative research could confirm and enrich the findings and recommendations. Research about integrity is almost exclusively focussed at the individual level of analysis.

This study provided insights to guide coaches and human resources professionals on the effects of a coaching intervention with related positive outcomes for evidence on appropriate ways to enhance leaders’ development in organisations.