Now there’s a perplexing question. Some of you will immediately respond with, “Of course not!” while others hesitate, reflecting briefly on the likes of Genghis Khan, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Attila the Hun and then conclude that–all infractions and despoliation aside–since these men influenced others and were successful in their endeavors, they are examples of leadership. Ultimately, they led great armies into many successful battles, expanding their empires and strengthening the power of their respective regimes. But if we can only reach this conclusion after we set aside their unethical violent tactics of self-grandeur, are we not in a roundabout way acknowledging that true leadership does require the presence of ethics in the leader? Let’s take a closer look at this conundrum.
There are numerous theories and approaches to leadership and they all have a common vein: dedication to something other than self. Servant leaders are dedicated to the well-being of their organizations, their followers, or–most often–both. Authentic leadership is a pattern of leader behavior that develops from and is grounded in the leader’s positive psychological qualities and strong ethics (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Transformational leadership raises motivation and morality in both leaders and followers as those acting as leaders direct their energies toward supporting others in order to achieve a common, mutual purpose together. This requirement for “mutuality” is what gives leadership an ethical overtone; mutuality lessens the possibility that leaders might act toward followers in ways that are forced or unethical. Being a leader demands awareness on our part of the way our ethics defines our leadership. Ethical leaders respect their followers and are willing to listen to their ideas and show respect for their decisions. The choices leaders make and how they respond to circumstances are influenced by their ethics (Northouse, 2013).
There are people in positions of power over others but this doesn’t make them leaders as set forth by the descriptions in the previous paragraph because their beliefs and behaviors may be self-serving. For instance, a supervisor whose decisions are based primarily on which option increases their visibility within the department or garners the CEO’s acknowledgement or one that only accepts high-profile assignments for his/her team is not focused on a common goal. They are instead using the accomplishments of their followers to elevate their own career and propel them toward their own goals. This is an example of ethical egoism as the leader’s main concern is maximizing the greatest benefit to him/herself without much consideration of the needs of his/her followers.
Likewise, corrupt leaders are not leading their followers–they’re manipulating and coercing them. Some will use transactional tactics that resemble those of the Path-Goal Theory whereby they motivate subordinates to accomplish designated goals by supplementing what is missing, like sharing information or offering rewards in exchange for their willingness to perform the work needed (Indvik, 1986). In the case of the aforementioned foursome, it’s more likely that they first withheld all items required to meet basic needs and then used them as bait to compel the followers to comply with their demands. Although this proved to be very effective in coercing obedience, there is not even a hint of mutuality in their exploits. Bass & Riggio (2006) coined the perfect term for them: pseudotransformational leadership–leadership that is self-consumed, exploitive, and has warped moral values. So, are they leaders?
Manipulation and coercion are not acceptable qualities of effective leadership for a multitude of reasons based on research. An example is a study completed by Ozgur Demirtas (2013) that supported the notion that ethical leadership behavior increases the organizational justice perception of followers. Leaders must cultivate ethical behavior in their firms by possessing a set of values that serves as the core of high moral conduct; consequently, managers have a primary role in shaping ethical conduct and perceived justice at all levels of an organization. Another study looked at perceptions of ethical and unethical leadership in both Western and Eastern cultures. The results showed that both cultures shared a value-based understanding of ethical leadership as evolving around an honest and fair leader with high integrity who displays people orientation and leads effectively by example as well as a view that unethical leaders are dishonest, unjust, egocentric persons who tend to manipulate others through the use of destructive behaviors (Auvinen, Lamsa, Sintonen, & Takala, 2013).
All of these conditions must be taken into consideration when answering the question of whether or not leadership without ethics is really leadership at all. According to Burns (1978), leaders have an obligation to attend to the personal motivations and moral development of followers. Unethical corrupt leaders aren’t concerned with moral development; their focus is on manipulation and coercion of others in order to achieve their own personal agenda–which is not true leadership as defined by Northouse (2013). First, this violates Immanuel Kant’s argument that we must treat others with respect and not as means to ends and Beauchamp & Bowie’s (1988) assertion that persons must be treated as having their own autonomously established goals and never be treated purely as the means to another’s personal goals. Second, it violates Beauchamp & Childress’ (1994) contention that leaders have a duty to serve others and help them pursue their own legitimate goals and interests. Third, by treating those in positions to advance the leaders’ objectives better than those who are not in such positions, it violates the ethical leadership principle of justice that requires leaders to treat all subordinates in an equal manner. Fourth, by disguising the leader’s true objectives, it violates Dalla Costa’s (1998) recommendation under the leadership principle of honesty: do not misrepresent. And finally, when leaders fail to show concern for others and force others to support their goals, they are violating the ethical leadership principle of building community.
Leadership is a process of influencing others that has a moral dimension. It involves values, including showing respect for followers, being fair to others, and building community. Unethical people in positions of power are not leaders; they are only rulers, despots, or dictators whose only concern is their own objectives. Northouse (2013) provides abundant evidence from a plethora of researchers that sums it up in this sentence: Leadership is evident in the choices one makes, the basis for the choice, how that choice affects others, and whether or not all of these conditions are even considered during the decision-making process.
References
Auvinen, T. P., L�ms�, A., Sintonen, T., & Takala, T. (2013). Leadership manipulation and ethics in storytelling. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 415-431. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1454-8
Bass, B.M., & riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beauchamp, T.L., & Bowie, N.E. (1988). Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Dalla Costa, J. (1998). The ethical imperative: Why moral leadership is good business. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Demirtas, O. (2013). Ethical leadership influence at organizations: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1950-5
Eisenbei�, S. A., & Brodbeck, F. (2013). Ethical and unethical leadership: A cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1740-0
Indvik, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meeting (pp. 189-192). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of management.
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S., & Peterson, S.J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.