As a frequent user and contributor on Linked-In (you can find my profile on www.linkedin.com). I periodically respond to philosophical questions regarding leadership and other topics. Recently Nils Montan a Senior Consultant at Robin Rolfe Resources, Inc and former President of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition posed an interesting question regarding ethics and leadership, clearly with the intent of stiulating an interesting ethical discussion. The question posed by Mr. Montan reads:
Is leadership a morally neutral characteristic or skill. That is, there have been “great” leaders of fascist states for example. Should we consider them great or not.
Here are my thoughts…I welcome yours.
This is a great question and one of critical importance.
Leadership cannot be morally neutral.
In the forward of Joanne Ciulla’s 1998 classic book on ethical leadership, Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, James MacGregor Burns actually does the best job of explaining it through the use of his three leadership values. Burns identifies these values as ethical values, modal values and end values. Each warrant additional explanation.
Ethical values is mom and apple pie. Burn describes this as sobriety, chastity, abstention, kindness; things that serve as a basic character test. Consider the implications of an individual in a leadership role who violates these basic principles. Former New York Governor Spitzer is a case study in a failure of ethical values.
Modal values involves what Burns refers to as honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, reliability, reciprocity, and accountability.
End values involve such traits as as security, liberty, equality, justice and community frequently seen in Transformational Leadership (think Lincoln).
The problem with with these values, however, is that they can conflict with cultural reality. For example, as Burn cites, modal values too tend to be culture-based and diverse. One society’s honesty is another society’s incivility; one society’s reciprocity is another society’s corruption. However, in each one of these values there are characteristics that transcend culture and speak to basic human dignity, honor and respect. Think about the words:
Integrity, trust, respect, accountability, equality: these are not morally neutral words.
Where there has been commonality, however, is society’s slow steady progress toward end values. When we think of great leaders we think in these terms. We think about how they improved the common good , help establish justice and build the community. Being a great leader involves transformational leadership and when examined through this lens, the number of great leaders dwindle significantly.
History has its share of great leaders. Burns talks about Mandela, King, and Gandhi, but there are others: the Dalai Lama, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Theresa to name a few. None of these individuals were morally neutral.
The world continues to grow and move at amazing speeds. We can instantly communicate with someone across the world, we can see steaming videos on the net as they happen, and we can travel to any major city in the world in less than 24 hours. The capability of the military of the world’s nations is staggering. However, even with these changes undreamed of by our forefathers, the necessity for moral and ethical leadership that speaks to the end values identified by Burns remains clear.
Now, more than ever.
Recent Comments