Leadership: Towards A New Ethic

By Marcus M. Mottley, Ph.D

In this age of Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, the Vioxx debacle at Merck and political leaders who succumb to bribes and vulgar behaviors, a critical and invasive spotlight is being placed on the ethical practices of leaders in both the private and public sectors. Any honest examination of leadership practices today will assert that ethical practice among global public and private sector leaders is un-arguably quite lacking. Leadership ethics, I would argue is at a crossroads.

Joanne B. Ciulla in “Ethics, the Heart of Leadership poses that “Power and authority in today’s world stem not from position or coercion, but from trust, commitment and values shared with those who are led.” Well, whereas I might agree that, power and authority might not stem from coercion, they do stem from position. And, I could possibly be persuaded to also agree that positions of “power and authority can emerge from the trust and commitment of the followers, personnel and share-holders. But, I would strongly disagree that such “power and authority” stem from any “shared-values” among leaders such as those at Enron, Global Cross, Worldcom, and even at Merck and the people who “follow them.”

This is also the case in political arenas where the power and authority emerge from the voters' beliefs that elected leaders represent their yearnings and desires, as well as their goals and objectives. In a sense many political leaders do represent the yearnings and desires of many of their constituencies… in the sense that they have the same yearnings for the trappings of power and success: money, social status, and the authority to direct others to do their bidding. The difference is that they want these things for themselves first... and somewhere down the road - for the people in their constitunencies.

Often times, leaders such as those at Merck and Enron, just like politicians and elected personnel, start out by making fabulous promises and commitments in order to get votes – either from shareholders or from community stakeholders. When they do get to positions of power and authority… their commitments begin to recede into the background as they begin wrestle with their personal agendas and desires. In many cases, they renege on their commitments and betray the trust of the their shareholder or stakeholder constituents.

According to Warren Bennis and Bert Nanus, “Trust is the emotional glue that binds followers and leaders together.” And, that is at the heart of why leadership ethics is at a crossroads. Do we have leaders who are worthy of our trust, fully committed to our common interests and who share our values?

Bernard M. Bass and Paul Steidlmeier of the Center for Leadership Studies, School of Management at Binghamton University in New York, “The ethics of leadership rests upon three pillars: (1) the moral character of the leader, (2) the ethical values embedded in the leader’s vision, articulation, and program which followers either embrace or reject, and (3) the morality of the processes of social ethical choices and actions that leaders and followers engage in and collectively pursue.”

I would argue that of the three pillars that Bass and Steidlmeier identify, the first pillar, “The moral character of the leader” is the most important. It is like a super-pillar on which all other pillars depend. Why? Because in today’s world, even in our so-called democracies, the ‘leader’ is endowed and invested with enormous authority and huge decision-making powers that can impact the lives (and deaths) of thousands of people.

With the stroke of a pen, any one of today’s private or public sector leaders, can impact billions of people around the globe. From President Bush to President Chavez, from Rex Tillerson, president of ExxonMobil Corporation to G. Richard "Rick" Wagoner Jr, President and CEO of General Motors, from Steve Hills, president and general manager of the Washington Post to Tian Congming, president of Xinhua News Agency (China News Agency) – all have the power to influence billions of people – positively and negatively.

We are at a cross roads of ethical leadership because, while the world is apparently moving towards theoretical democracy, we are increasingly dependent on individuals who ascend to the throne of global power and authority. And, if recent events in both the private and public sectors can be seen as yard sticks, ‘followers’ (shareholders and stakeholders) need to be vigilant, cautious and exercise more independence in decision-making. They also need to be less trusting and demand total transparency in the process of public and private sector governance.

What can leaders do?
According to Bass and Steidlmeier ‘modern western philosophy tacitly assumes that there is no morally valid leadership without the consent of the led.’ Therefore leaders must remember that one of the central tenets of western philosophy, and indeed, democracy is that all ‘all authority emanates from the governed.’

Since ethical leadership rests on the ‘moral character of the leader’, modern leaders must also embrace Confucian notion of the ‘moral sage’ and ‘superior person’. This is similar to Plato’s idea of the ‘philosopher king’ whose wisdom and purity allows him to rise above base idealism and personal faults like greed, favoritism and lust.

Leaders must privately uphold the values that they publicly espouse whether these are moral, religious or spiritual mores. The leader who goes to church on Sunday and robs his shareholders on Monday is certainly demonstrating an immoral character – no matter what he says publicly. The leader who argues for a pay raise, in addition to a multiple million dollar salary while he is downsizing his workforce, while his company's profits are down andwhile shareholders are losing money is definitely demonstrating a greedy character. A leader who preys on the vulnerable within his organization and coerces them into activities that serve his base interests is demonstrating a character ingrained with lust and depravity. The moral character of a leader is as important as his visionary ideas, his creative decision-making and his strength in motivating people to embrace a shared future together.

Finally, the western world has promulgated a philosophy where each person is responsible for himself, and every individual pursues his own self interest. Seemingly, based on the constant stream of negative examples, today’s leaders have passionately embraced this individualism to the exclusion of a leaders commitment to and resposnibility for his 'followers'. This needs to change.

According to Rawls (1971) the legitimacy of leadership depends on granting the same liberty and opportunity to others that one claims for oneself. The legitimacy of leadership rests on telling the truth, keeping promises, distributing to each what is due, and employing valid incentives or sanctions. Leaders who follow these principles recognize not only the pluralism of values and diversity of motivations among their ‘followers’, but also recognize that he or she exists (in their mantle of leadership) solely to serve the interests of their shareholders or stakeholders and not their own.