Jill W. Graham
Abstract: This paper suggests that different styles of leadership arouse
different sorts of normative motivation among followers, and these diverse
motivational sources in tum are associated with different forms of
participant contribution to organizational success. Three interrelated
clusters of leadership styles, normative motivation of followers, and organizational
citizenship behavior are described. Leadership that appeals
exclusively to followers’ self-interests is associated with preconventional
moral development and dependable task performance. Leadership
styles focusing on interpersonal relationships and social networks are
associated with followers’ conventional moral development and work
group collaboration. Transforming leadership that both models and nurtures
servant leadership abilities is associated with post-conventional
moral development and responsible participation in organizational govemance.
Inducing constructive contributions from participants in collective entities and
enterprises has long been a concern of political philosophers and organizational
scholars. The role leaders potentially play in inspiring or otherwise motivating
the behavior of followers has received special attention. Building on the
observations of Burns (1978) and Greenleaf (1977) that leaders have the potential
of enhancing the moral development of followers, this paper proposes theoretical
linkages between a range of well-known styles of leadership behavior,
three paradigmatic levels of moral reasoning, and three forms of participant
contribution, also called organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
The first section ofthe paper offers brief overviews of research on varieties of
OCB and levels of moral development. In the second section these typologies
are related to each other and also to a range of styles of leadership. The paper
concludes with an assessment of the contradictory potential of charismatic leadership.
Theoretical Background
Varieties of Participant Contribution
Over the long term, successful organizations benefit from a variety of forms
of participant contribution which vary in motivational impetus (Katz, 1964;
Organ, 1990). Three distinctive types of contribution—displayed in Figure 1—
are dependable task accomplishment, work group collaboration, and civic virtue
(Graham, 1991a).
©1995. Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 5, Issue 1 ISSN 1052-150X. 0043-0054
Dependable Task Accomplishment
Regular on-time attendance
Reliable effort expended on both quality and quantity of output
Efficient use of resources
Compliance with rules and instructions
Common sense handling of unforeseen contingencies
Work Group Collaboration
Sharing information, tools, and other resources
Helping to train and socialize newcomers
Assisting those with heavy workloads
Responding flexibly to disruption
Representing the group favorably to outsiders
Civic Virtue: Constructive Participation in
Organizational Governance
Keeping informed about current (and potential)
issues of organizational importance
Attending nonrequired meetings
Giving decision makers timely information and input about
organizational policy or practice
Providing reasoned arguments for proposed changes
Listening to other points of view
Sources: Adapted from Graham (1991a), “An Essay on Organizational Citizenship
Behavior,” and Organ (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Good Soldier Syndrome.
Dependable task accomplishment includes the basics of regular on-time attendance,
reliable effort expended on both quality and quantity of output, efficient
use of resources, and common-sense handling of unforeseen contingencies. All
these behaviors concern individual task performance and are familiar indicators
of the hard-working employee who is attentive to detail and responsive to instruction.
A second category of contribution—work group collaboration—differs from
the first by focusing on interpersonal cooperation in the workplace (Kohn,
1986). Illustrative behaviors include sharing information, tools and other resources
with others, helping newcomers and those with heavy workloads, representing
the group favorably to outsiders, and responding flexibly to
inconveniences occasioned by others’ mistakes. These cooperative behaviors
reflect a generosity of spirit and loyalty to the group as a whole. While theoretically
distinct from the task-focused behaviors in the first category, work group
collaboration presumes that the individual’s assigned task is also performed
Dependable task accomplishment as well as work group collaboration have
long been identified as examples of participant contributions necessary for organizational
success (Katz, 1964), and about a decade ago began to be termed
“organizational citizenship behavior” (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ,
& Near, 1983). Reference to the term “citizenship,” however, also suggests a
third form of contribution, civic virtue, or constructive participation in organizational
governance (Graham, 1986). This form of OCB is less obvious and more
controversial than the other two (Graham, 1991a). but also has been described
as the most admirable form (Organ, 1988:13). It includes keeping informed
about issues of organizational importance, attending nonrequired meetings, giving
decision-makers timely information and input about organizational policies
and practices, providing reasoned arguments for proposed changes, and listening
to other points of view. Such behaviors assume a capacity for independent
critical analysis and may require moral courage to deliver bad news or defend a
minority point of view.
The three categories of participant contribution are theoretically distinct, and
in general each builds on the previous one. However, conflicts are conceivable
between civic virtue and the other forms of contribution. For example, if a
worker feels that a work instruction is unwise or unethical, s/he may refuse to
comply with it while appealing to a higher authority for clarification and/or
correction of the order. Thus, while responsible participation in governance has
long been recognized as a vital contribution of active citizens (Inkeles, 1969),
and can also play an important role in helping organizations to stay up-to-date
and avoid wrongdoing, it may be seen as inconvenient or even threatening by
those who put a premium on individual task accomplishment and/or smooth-running
group collaboration. As a result of ambivalent or even hostile attitudes
toward civic virtue, motivating participants to contribute in that particular way
may pose the greatest challenge.
Varieties of Normative Motivation
The motivation to contribute to organizational success varies across persons,
situations, and types of contribution, but has long been analyzed in terms of the
rewards (or inducements) associated with specific forms of contribution (e.g.,
Simon, 1952). One way to broaden the discussion of motivation is to rephrase
the question, “What makes a behavior worth doing?” to “What makes the behavior
good?” This normative approach to motivation does not ignore the traditional
rewards-centered approach; but rather situates the logic of pay-offs along a
continuum of cognitive moral development.
Developmental psychologists have identified several levels of moral reasoning
(e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1969,1976), and all have limits. Asummary
of the logic used at each level is shown in Figure 2.
Level 1: Pre-conventional
Stage 1: Uncritical obedience to rules set by an external authority
who controls rewards and punishments.
Stage 2: Instrumental performance of explicit exchange agreements
iff nonperformance would adversely affect self-interest.
Level 2: Conventional
Stage 3: Fulfilling role obligations arising from specific
interpersonal relationships.
Stage 4: Fulfilling fixed social duties arising from membership in
a specific group, institution, or society.
Level 3: Post-conventional
Stage 5: Utilitarian calculus taking all stakeholders’ interests into
Stage 6: Utilization of self-chosen, universal ethical principles to
seek creative solutions to ethical dilemmas that serve the
common good while respecting the individual rights of all
interested parties (including self).
Sources: Adapted from Carol Gilligan (1982), In a Different Voice: Psychological
Theory and Women’s Development, and Lawrence Kohlberg (1969), “Stage and
Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization,” and (1976),
“Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach.”
At the earliest level of development—preconventional morality—morality is
defined solely in terms of what an unquestioned authority figure (e.g., parent,
teacher, soldier, boss) declares to be right and wrong. Right action is that which
buys favor from the authority figure, thereby protecting or enhancing self-interest.
This makes preconventional morality essentially instrumental in character.
As such, it contains no restraint on unbridled egotism, on the one hand; and, on
the other, no basis for independently assessing the morality of authoritative
pronouncements. For a preconventional moral reasoner, “I was just following
orders” is an adequate moral defense for any behavior, no matter how outrageous.
The second level—conventional morality—moves away from individual
authority figures to social systems of rules and responsibilities. The focus of
moral concern broadens from protection of personal interests to performance of
social duties. While these obligations may be articulated by individual spokespeople,
they have authoritative force because the hearer takes seriously his or
her identity as a member of a social group with cultural traditions and normative
expectations; the member is loyal to the group. Such loyalty, however, can give
rise to groupthink, the uncritical acceptance of majority opinion (Janis, 1972).
Gilligan’s (1982) analysis of female moral development identifies another danger
of conventional morality: the potential for imbalance caused by an abdication
of self-interest by those who devote themselves entirely to the needs and
interests of others.
Both the first and second levels of moral reasoning have the advantage of
simplifying moral decisions by relying on external authorities to distinguish
right from wrong. The third level—post-conventional morality—moves from
external definitions of morality (be they determined by individual authority
figures or social convention) to independently arrived at principled beliefs that
are used creatively in the analysis and resolution of moral dilemmas. When an
individual moves from the relative passivity of levels one and two to become an
active subject at level three, the limitations ofthe other levels of moral reasoning
are overcome: respect for and careful balancing of all interests avoids both
excessive attention to or abdication of self-interests; and independent analysis
and moral courage counteract the threats posed by uncritical reliance on a single
authority and/or groupthink. Such efforts are complex and time-consuming,
however, and presuppose a mature and well-balanced personality. Some leadership
styles have what Burns (1978: 41) describes as an “elevating power” that
may both provide a model for and help to nurture the personal development of
followers that is necessary to post-conventional morality.
Clusters of Leadership, Normative Motivation, and OCB
While leadership surely is not the only determinant of the moral reasoning
capacity of followers, the example that leaders set, the encouragement they
provide, and the inspiration they offer arguably can influence followers’ moral
development in a variety of ways. In this section of the paper, a range of wellknown
leadership styles is related to the levels of moral reasoning and OCB that
were described earlier. An overview of the proposed relationships is provided in
Figure 3.
Exchange and
Level of Moral
to external
with exchange
Meet interpersonal
Fulfill social
duties from
group membership
Discern and
apply universal
rules and
and job
with supervisor
Costs and benefits
for all
of justice
Form of OCB
task accomplishment
in organizational
Cluster I: Dependable task performance can be induced by incentives and the
instrumental moral imperative of preconventional moral reasoning. Leadership
that assists followers in understanding the connection between their contributions
to the organization and the personal consequences of their acts will
strengthen followers’ normative motivation to perform the specifics of their
assigned tasks. Leaders can not only clarify but also enforce these connections.
If the emphasis is on positive outcomes of subordinate action, such leadership
can be described as clarifying path-goal relationships (House, 1971). If the
emphasis is on negative outcomes of subordinate (in)action, such leadership can
be described as autocratic or coercive (Greenleaf, 1978). Neutral terms include
initiating structure (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) and transactional leadership (Bass,
1985). These leadership styles all have in common an emphasis on influencing
subordinate behavior by connecting it to specific rewards and/or punishments.
They are based on an operant conditioning (or perhaps expectancy) model of
behavioral psychology (Sims, 1977).
Command and control leadership is likely to be most effective for subordinate
behaviors that are concrete and specifiable in advance, such as regular on-time
attendance, reliable effort expended on quantity and quality of output, and compliance
with work rules—all examples of dependable task accomplishment.
While convenient for management in the short run, such ready obedience provides
no check on the possibility of unethical rules or instructions; authority is
obeyed without question.
Cluster II: Work group collaboration—helpfulness, generosity, and cooperation—
is less amenable to command and control methods of leadership than
dependable task performance because the description and timing of desired
behaviors are difficult to specify in advance. Since cooperative behavior is more
a way of life than a set of discrete acts capable of assignment, monitoring and
reward, leadership that establishes and nurtures ongoing interpersonal relationships
and their related social roles is likely to be important for work group
collaboration. For example, leader consideration (Stogdill & Coons, 1957; Bass,
1985) and cultivation of vertical dyadic exchange between leaders and favored
subordinates (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975) may engender interpersonal
loyalty and a moral obligation to fulfill or exceed role expectations above and
beyond the promised payoffs for dependable task performance. On a more impersonal
basis, institutional leadership or “organizational statesmanship”
(Selznick, 1957) may help to create and sustain an organizational culture with
strong norms of role performance and supererogatory contribution. Several OCB
studies have found evidence connecting leader attributes such as trustworthiness
and fairness with subordinate altruism/cooperation, but a different set of causal
factors for obedience-type OCBs (e.g., Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Smith et al., 1983). In these studies
it appears that leadership helps create strong interpersonal and/or social relationships
that broaden self-interest to include service to a dyad or group, thereby
giving rise to social norms that favor cooperation as well as personal industry.
The dedication to duty and generosity engendered by conventional moral
reasoning is less self-serving than the instrumental ethic of preconventional
morality, yet it too has its limits. While Gilligan’s (1982) analysis of conventional
morality focuses on women and family relationships, an analogous imbalance
is conceivable within organizations: the organization man’s [sic]
workaholism, for example, may entail sacrificing self-interest to organizational
goals to an extent that is not only generous but potentially self-destructive.
Cluster III: Constructive participation in organizational governance avoids
the extremes of both chronic complainers agitating exclusively for selfish interests
(operating from a pre-conventional morality) and docile acquiescence to
groupthink or unhealthy altruism (operating out of conventional morality). Selfishness
and naive gullibility are both lessened when people are empowered to
engage in high level moral reasoning that assesses and balances interests of all
stakeholders in terms of universal moral principles. Leadership that models and
encourages post-conventional moral reasoning has been termed “transforming”
(Bums, 1978) and “servant leadership” (Greenleaf, 1977). Burns describes transforming
leaders as “rais[ing] the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration
of both leader and led” (Burns, 1978: 20) in terms of “near-universal ethical
principles of justice such as equality of human rights and respect for individual
dignity” (p. 42). Greenleaf (1977) describes servant leadership as focusing on
the highest priority needs of those being served, both within and outside an
organization. As a practical test for this form of leadership, Greenleaf asks:
. . . do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become
healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become
servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will he
benefit, or, at least, will he not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977: 13-14)
Drake and Baasten (1990, pp. 4-6) identify three things leaders can do to
elevate moral dialogue. First, they can legitimate it by engaging in it themselves,
making it clear they are open to conversations about the ethics of their own, as
well as organizational, policies and practices. Second, leaders can demonstrate
concern for a wide range of stakeholders of the organization. At a moral minimum,
this requires that organizational actions benefit, or at least not harm, all
stakeholder groups. Finally, leaders can encourage diversity and dissent to “prevent
complacency and encourage continued learning by all parties” (Drake &
Baasten, 1990, p. 5). By these means leaders can nurture high level moral reasoning
and the practice of civic virtue in the workplace.
Charismatic leadership: Until recently, organizational scholars writing about
charismatic leadership and its variants have emphasized its capacity to motivate
performance beyond expectations (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985,1988;
Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988). Its inspirational quality has been associated
with follower trust in the correctness of the leader’s beliefs, unquestioning acceptance
of the leader, willing obedience to the leader, and emulation of the
leader (House, 1977). What is troublesome is that such a perspective on charismatic
leadership neglects the moral hazards involved when “people abdicate
responsibility for any consistent, tough-minded evaluation of the outcomes of
specific policies” (Katz & Kahn, 1978: 545). It would appear that charismatic
leadership, as traditionally understood, encourages preconventional moral reasoning
with its blind faith in the authority of the (charismatic) leader. It is not
surprising, then, that Bass (1985: 20) counts Hitler among history’s most charismatic/
transformational leaders.
Happily, several recent articles on charismatic leadership (e.g., Graham, 1988
& 1991b; Howell, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1992) have addressed questions such
as, “What safeguards the morality of the ends and means advocated by a charismatic
leader?” (Graham, 1991b: 105). Howell & Avolio (1992) distinguish beLEADERSHIP,
tween “ethical charismatics” and “unethical charismatics.” The former are inspiring
leaders who
develop creative, critical thinking in their followers, provide opportunities for
them to develop, welcome positive and negative feedback, recognize contributions
of others, share information with followers, and have moral standards that
emphasize collective interests of the group, organization, or society. (Howell &
Avolio, 1992: 44).
Howell & Avolio’s (1992) ethical charismatics. Bums’ (1978) “transforming
leaders,” and Greenleaf’s (1977) “servant leaders” all describe leader-follower
relationships that focus on the ideals of service and growth. In servant-led organizations,
serving the needs and interests of all participants is part of the
purpose and normal functioning of the enterprise, and opportunities for wide
participation in discussions about policies and practices provide the means for
that end. The consequence of such organizational ends and means is an ethically
elevating climate that frees participants from the need to guard self-interest
without regard for the cost to others (in the manner of preconventional morality),
or to subordinate self-interest entirely to group interests or organizational goals
(as is possible with conventional morality). Instead participants, encouraged by
servant leaders, are responsible both for informing others of their own needs and
interests, and for inquiring about those of others—the object being to serve in a
balanced way all those needs and interests that do not violate moral injunctions
such as not harming others. Integrative solutions are devised to resolve conflicts—
for example, by applying universal moral principles behind a Rawlsian
(1971) veil of ignorance (of which interests are one’s own)—so that some interests
are not systematically favored over others. The role ofthe transforming/servant
leader is to envision, espouse, facilitate, and model this process.
That servant leaders encourage others to engage in high level moral reasoning
is significant for several reasons. First, impartial application of universal principles
to resolve moral conflicts and dilemmas balances self-interest with equal
concern for others’ interests. This has the effect of calling forth reserves of
emotional and physical energy to serve the common good.
But that is not all. For who determines what the common good is? Should
leaders—even servant leaders— presume to have infallible insight into what
best serves the common good of all? If that position be accepted, where are the
safeguards against leaders who would disguise their personal interests in the
attractive garb of the common interest, thereby neglecting, or even harming, the
interests of other stakeholders? It is here that the second significant role of
post-conventional moral reasoning and the civic virtue associated with it are
critical. Followers are encouraged to do their own thinking, not to accept the
moral definitions espoused by powerful or otherwise appealing authority figures.
Selfishness and gullibility are both lessened when people are empowered
to engage in high level moral reasoning. Servant leaders serve their followers
best when they model and also encourage others not only to engage in independent
moral reasoning, but also to follow it up with constructive participation
in organizational governance.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational Leadership, Charisma,
and Beyond. In Hunt, J. G., Baliga, B. R., Dachler, H. P. & Schriesheim,
C. A. (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas, 29-49. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving Perspectives on Charismatic Leadership, In Conger,
J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The
Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, 40-77. San Francisco:
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance: Beyond Expectations. New
York: Free Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier:
The Relationship Between Affect and ‘Citizenship.’ i4ca<f^my of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings. Academy of Management Journal, 12(4), 637-647. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Associates. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership in Formal Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Drake, B., & Baasten, M. (1990). Facilitating Moral Dialogue and Debate: A New Leadership Dimension. Paper presented at the Western Academy of Management, Shizuoka, Japan, June. Farh, J-L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Leader Fairness and Task Scope versus Satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16(4), 705-721. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Graham, J. W. (1991a). An Essay on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249-270. Graham, J. W. (1986). Organizational Citizenship Informed by Political Theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL, August. Graham, J. W. (1991b). Servant-leadership in Organizations: Inspirational and Moral. Leadership Quarterly 2(2), 105-119. Graham, J. W. (1988). Transformational Leadership: Fostering Follower Autonomy, not Automatic FoUowership. In Hunt, J. G., Baliga, B. R., Dachler, H. R, & Schriesheim, C. A. (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas, 73-79. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Greenleaf, R. K. (1978). The Leadership Crisis: A Message for College and University Faculty. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press. LEADERSHIP, DEVELOPMENT, AND BEHAVIOR 53 House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In Hunt, J. G., & Larson, L. L. (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, 189-207. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J. (1971). APath-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. >Wmmi.srrar/ve
Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two Faces of Charisma: Socialized and Personalized
Leadership in Organizations. In Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Associates
(Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness,
213-236. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The Ethics of Charismatic Leadership:
Submission or Liberation? Academy of Management Executive 5(2), 43-54.
Inkeles, A. (1969). Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries. American
Political Science Review, 63{A), 1120-1141.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-
Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Katz, D. (1964). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Behavioral
Science, 9, 131-146.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd
ed.. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Developmental
Approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior.
New York: HoU, Rinehart & Winston.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach
to Socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory
and Research, 347-480. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston: Houghton
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The ‘Good Soldier’
Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior, 12: 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie. S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in
Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration. New York: Harper & Row.
Simon, H. A. (1952). Inducements and Incentives in Bureaucracy. In R. K.
Merton, A. P. Gray, B. Hockey, & H. C. Selven (Eds.), Reader in Bureaucracy,
327-333. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Sims, H. P. (1977). The Leader as a Manager of Reinforcement Contingencies:
An Empirical Example and a Model. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The Cutting Edge, 121-137. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W, & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4),
Stogdill, R., & Coons, A. F. (1957). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement.
Monograph 88, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
©1995. Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 5, Issue 1. ISSN 1052-150X. 0043-0054.

Looking for Discount?

You'll get a high-quality service, that's for sure.

To welcome you, we give you a 15% discount on your All orders! use code - ESSAY15

Discount applies to orders from $30
©2020 EssayChronicles.com. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer: for assistance purposes only. These custom papers should be used with proper reference.