Our values, whatever they are, are the theoretical references and inspiring principles that guide (or should guide) our actions. Attention, however, they are not the self-referential presupposition, to which we individually and individualistically refer to self-identify ourselves in the expression of our morality, it would be really too little and of no social utility.
They, our values, must be superimposable to the values expected from the social context in which we live and with which we have an interest in interacting. The "contract" that, more or less implicitly, we enter into with our fellow men is conditioned by the respect of the minimum criteria of acceptance of the other and his values, in a continuous exchange of references for a constructive growth of relationships.
This principle is at the basis of any accomplished expression of leadership. A leader can rightly be defined as "irresponsible" if he betrays the social commitment that is reflected even in a work team. His irresponsibility is determined by a behavior that is not consistent with the right expectations that the members of his team have towards those who have to guide them in the realization of a project. Irresponsibility and betrayal annihilate any form of enthusiasm and extinguish the flame of active and constructive participation.
It is not just a question of "good manners", but of trying, in practice, to find the points of overlap of one's own modalities of action with those that any member of the team could or would be able to put in place. For the leader it is not a question of flattening himself on conventional and stereotyped behaviors, but of maintaining his own identity within recognizable communication criteria, which reassure his collaborators.
Irresponsible leadership consists in ignore this dynamic and rely on models that seem to coincide more with the personal projections of the hierarchical role. The consequences will always be harmful, first on the team and, in a more or less short time, on a large part of the organization.