Abstract
Ethical failure in leadership is a key factor in causing many serious crises in human society. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the theoretical and practical knowledge of ethical leadership in Buddhist and American thoughts. The research employed a qualitative method, specifically a philosophical approach, to synthesize the knowledge of ethical leadership from Buddhist and American viewpoints. A framework of analysis that facilitated a parallel and disciplined investigation of the two fields was constructed. The framework included (a) conceptual foundations, (b) purposes, (c) development, and (d) core values. This study found that the conceptual variations of ethics and leadership exist between these two perspectives. There are extensive likenesses that exist in the purposes of ethics and leadership between these two traditions. Each tradition has on opposite view on the manner of development of ethics and leadership. In addition, Buddhist ethical, or leadership, values are focused more on personal qualities and related mutually. From the American perspective, ethical and leadership values are mainly focused on the interactive relationship among people. This study demonstrates the consensus between the two traditions regarding the origin of ethical behavior, and this consensus could result in a dominant social valuation of others over self. Through the research, the integrated results suggested that in meeting the challenges of ethical failure in leadership, a conceptually superior approach is a combination in which one's leadership is influenced by his/her ethical conscientiousness. The demonstration of ethical leadership cannot be influenced by a leader's internal impure desire or any difficulty from external circumstances. In other words, the ethical commitments must be consistent from internal thought to external performance, from personal to professional, from oneself to others, from family to society, and especially, from the beginning to the end. Ethical leadership is not just a leader's technical proficiency, but concurrently, a leader's ethical consequence.