The Power of Experiencing a True Ethical Leader and How Their Example Helps Align One’s Morality
By David Joseph
Without a doubt, Mary Ellen Thorpe (fictitious name) is the most ethical leader I have ever known. From the very basics of her approach to challenges in being a leader, to the most complex ideologies she proposes to leverage competitive advantage in organizational strategies, she exemplifies the very highest level of ethicality I have seen in a simplistic and pragmatic way that has captivated my personal appreciation, excited me to respond in similar ways, and reset my approach to ethical dilemmas I have faced, since I first met her. At the very first encounter with Ms. Thorpe, one quickly notices a high level of selflessness as she centers her focus on the interest of others, their success, and what she can do to assist in helping them reach their highest potential of self-actualization. It’s as if she processes situations using a very different compass from the rest of us, as her sense of rationalizing through ethical dilemmas seem to be grounded in a perpetual reevaluation of every situation through principles to bolstering everyone she comes in contact with. It’s not that her will to do this comes out of a desire to please or impress others, as I have seen her persistence continually endured for many years and even at times she would evoke these sentiments when there were apparent inconveniences that could potentially derail her from quick solutions or doing something she was involved in previously. Like on one occasion when I worked under her we were performing validations on new equipment in the department and countless hours of detail time was invested into ensuring that the new equipment was performing optimally, when it was discovered that the data we were basing our evaluations on potentially had errors. While the likelihood of this being the case was small, Ms. Thorpe’s conscience stood in the way of taking any chance of any negative ramifications occurring as a result of ignoring this information. Her will to do the right thing served as a strong enough impetus for her to initiate a reevaluation of the validation, from the beginning, to ensure that accuracy and an honest evaluation went into our efforts. Due to a looming deadline that could not be changed, we had to work through the night to make up for this loss of productivity. Not only did she not become angry that we missed or perhaps caused the mishap where the wrong data was introduced, she quietly traced the origin for purposes of amelioration its reoccurrence in the future, did not rebuke anyone for it, and stayed the night to help lighted the load of the arduous task ahead. Instead of this being a disaster she made it into an opportunity to get to know the group more as she brought in food and initiated fun conversations that lifted our spirits and helped make the time go by faster. That night the team bonded and we all gained a deeper sense of respect for each other and especially Ms. Thorpe. Behavioral expressions such as this are what Peter G. Northouse (2016) referred to in his book: Leadership: Theory and practice as altruism, which he defines as “actions … [whose] primary purpose is to promote the best interest of others” (p. 329). Because Ms. Thorpe displayed these specific set of caring values consistently, and not just conveniently with ulterior motives, she fits a profile of behavior that Northouse (2016) describes as a person’s value system, the committed enduring desire to reach a specific mode of ethical conduct. Ms. Thorpe’s approach showed respect for other’s efforts, patience, and understanding of individual mistakes. She handled this situation with fairness to everyone’s dedication and at the same time educated the group in a non-confrontational manner for everyone to grow from the experience. This response illustrated Northouse’s (2016) ethical leadership principles of showing justice and in another way by serving as a medium to build the unity and culture of the group to strengthen their value of ethics to each other. According to Northouse (2016) individuals are stimulated into behaving in specific patterns of behavior guided by morals reasoning, the internal referencing principles one uses to frame their sense of what is right or wrong that manifest itself into a somewhat permanent mode of conduct that the individual defaults to naturally called one’s values. Northouse (2016) posits that highly ethical leaders of this calling set out to elevate subordinates’ interest even when they counteract those of the leader. Together these patterns of high levels of sensitivity to followers serves as solid confirmations that she was indeed a leader that operated with ethicality as a guide to making decisions and all other forms of influencing initiatives to garner subordinates’ loyalty. Northouse (2016) description of the Centrality of Ethics to Leadership, the respect for people to always seek and attempt to tend to their needs and concerns, was in many ways exemplified by Ms. Thorpe’s leadership. When she extended herself and joined in when her staff was in a difficult situation, she demonstrated that the success and challenges the group faces was something she considered to also be her own. This type of ownership consciousness is the element of her response that qualifies her actions to show that she subscribed to Northouse’s (2016) Centrality of Ethics in Leadership. This in many ways is what stands out most about Ms. Thorpe.
There seems to be an inner moral conviction about her that grounds all of her decisions to be filtered through a set of lens to take into consideration virtue as the sovereign guiding force of her moral reasoning. As a leader, she is always constructive in her criticism rather that fault-finding for nefarious self-aggrandizement purposes of diminishing others through their mistakes to exult herself. Instead, she practices incorporating a subordinate’s positive qualities as a way to mention their challenge or deficiencies. She would even positively suggest ways to use one’s strengths to overcome difficulties they encountered. It was clear that she approached situations form an elevated moral standard. One way she demonstrated this as a leader was in her determination to not be a part of dishonest actions regardless of the source of its influence. On one occasion a senior manager asked her to perform actions that she thought went against her moral standards. The senior manager wanted her to lie on documentation to improve the appearance of the organization. He even attempted to use the power of his position to mandate that she comply. Vehemently, Ms. Thorpe refused to comply. Even when she was told that failure to do this could diminish her job’s evaluation, she stood by her convictions. She wrote a letter to the organization’s CEO describing the details of the situation and outlined her disagreement of this stating that she believed that this would only expose the organization to a disastrous outcome if the information went public. The CEO was previously unaware of this unethical situation and immediately, agreeing with Ms. Thorpe, he called for the resignation for the high level manager that attempted to force her to lie. Ms. Thorpe’s actions could be seen as ethical leadership of honesty by Northouse’s (2016) description as she held firm to clearly higher moral standards. In Northouse’s (2016) description of leadership levels where he utilizes L. Kohlbert (1981) Stages of Moral Development, it’s clear that she fits the highest stage, stage 6, in the category of Postconventional Morality as she applies her sense of justice (right and wrong) out of duty regardless of any threat or consequence she potentially could face. Her superior was in a sense a higher authority, that could impose rules on her, and he attempted to swindle his power over her into doing wrong, but this was not strong enough to pressure her into violating her moral convictions. This situation fits perfectly with Kohlbert’s (1984) Postconventional Morality.
Ms. Thorpe was always very open about her methods of succeeding. Her personal techniques, new knowledge, better alternatives to solve challenges, or her benignant response of kindheartedly binging to the surface the detection of potential dangers or shortcomings of others fortifies a strong following of subordinates who trust, and diligently returned her good favor with loyalty to both her command and the successful completion of organizational objectives, especially those that she initiates or is in any way was involved in. Another contributing factor that enables her to accumulate follower discipleship is her lack of competitiveness in leveraging credit for successful goal achievement. Often she could be seen dispensing rewards and gratuitous commendations for accomplishments by the group. Never would she reap personal credit for the achievements of others or even those from her performance while in a group setting. Instead she always gave individual praise and team extolment to the group’s efforts. Ms. Thorpe’s grace further extended in her approach when she discovers a problem or the group was in danger of facing consequences for an error made. At times like these, she would utilize unifying techniques of non-accusational problem-solving and seek the collective diversity of the group to encourage input to come up with solutions. At no point would she blame any member or the combine group for individual or team failure publically. Instead she utilizes these opportunities to generate greater confluence and better cohesiveness. The outcome always tells of a pertinacious solidarity of the group to stick together and share as much in victories together as in overcoming challenges. In other words, she utilized the challenges of difficult situations as an opportunity to unify all of the subordinates by taking advantage of the opportunity to have them work together and discover each other’s strengths and most of all to forge solidarity through the collaborative efforts of everyone participating in the process of overcoming. These qualities align Ms. Thorpe with another of Northouse’s (2016) categorization of ethical leadership – Altruism. Never would she seek self-interest first at the expense of her subordinates, defined by Northouse (2016) as Ethical Egoism, nor would she utilize survival of the fittest methodology of accepting the narrative of every situation had winners and losers, where ethics involved actions to promote the best interest of most, depicted by Northouse (2016) as Utilitarianism. Instead, she rose to a higher standard of service and sought the elevation of her subordinates, at her expense, which Northouse (2016) describes as being altruistic.
Another aspect of Ms. Thorpe’s ethical leadership that cemented me into seeing her as the most ethical leader I have encountered is her unquestionable transparency and simultaneous confidentiality with others’ private information. With the exceptions of individual and corporate private matters of personnel or strategic management developments, she holds fast to principles of unwavering lucidity of her intentions as a way of displaying her consistent fairness to both cultivate an environment of high integrity in her team and simultaneously dispel any perception of personal biases in her judgment. At the same time she had an unwavering determination to be devoted to keeping confidential information she came into possession of. Specifically, I can recall an occasion when she came across information about an employee who was having a drug problem and was caught actively using the drug in question, while on the job. While she recognized the need to have this person removed from the situation to not endanger others, she also saw the need for this employee to get help. She resolved this matter discretely and although escalating the incident to a high level of concern, she did this with utmost respect for all stakeholders. The employee received the help he needed, was sternly counseled, and given a conditional second chance to retain his job. I only learned of the details months later by the employee in question. Ms. Thorpe’s actions here demonstrate Northouse’s (2016) use of respect for others and showing judgment by an ethical leader. This situation also demonstrated her uncanny ability to deliver justice by the way she handled the employee’s drug problem in fairness but yet firm, another vital aspect of her personality that speaks of her meeting Northouse’s (2016) description of leadership ethicality. Northouse (2016) describes ethical leaders as being able to both be lenient but at the same time deliver some level of judgment to maintain order.
When I think of the impact being exposed to Ms. Thorpe’s array of ethical decisions have had on me, I am moved to feelings of extreme gratitude as I know she helped me to appreciate the value and power of influencing in being ethical. In the article Leadership, Ethics and Responsibility to the Other by D. Knights and M. O-Leary (2006) they tell of an interconnectivity that exist among members of a group whether you’re a leader or a subordinate; a kind of sharing of goal achievement and individual members’ personal self-actualization. They deem the leader as have the ultimate responsibility and greatest influencing power to set the stage for developing the group, and more broadly, an organization’s culture of being ethical. Ms. Thorpe strived in every aspect to fulfill this and many other ethical initiating as she strived to uplift each member, to be honest to individual needs and facilitate the greatest possible way of seeing that each member had a path to reaching their personal ambitions. It’s as if she perceived that when one member falls, all suffered a loss in some small way and the converse of the success of one equals winning for everyone. She embraced her responsibility to bring harmony and stimulate a higher standard of morality. When she stood by principles regardless of consequence she evoked motivation to her followers to also strive for high ethicality. Her willingness to serve her subordinates and religiously stand by solemn oaths to be trustworthy of their care and private information strengthened every subordinate of hers to become convicted of her principles. Ultimately, we became stewards of hers and have all now gone on to become ambassadors for what she stood for – pure and absolute ethicality unquestionably, whether leading or being a follower.
References
Kinghts, D., & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, Ethics and Responsibility to the Other. Journal of Business Ethics (Vol. 67, pp. 125-137).
Northouse, P. G. (Ed.). (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage