When I think about ethics and leaders I tend to go straight to the negative situations that involved a leader getting into trouble.  I’m not trying to constantly stay on the dark side and look for faults in others; this is just where my mind naturally goes and I believe that I am not alone in thinking this way.  My mind looks at the political leaders caught up in scandals, whether it be drugs or extramarital affairs.  My mind goes to the prominent CEO who lost his job after being arrested for getting into a fight with his mistress’ husband.  (I’m not naming names, but you can find results for these by doing a simple Internet search.)  What becomes clear (at least in my mind) is that these leaders have a lack of ethics.

Northouse (2013) provides a definition of ethics as being the values and morals an individual exhibits that affect his or her character or behavior.  Of course, the ethics of a leader are subject to his or her own personal beliefs or the standards of the community in which he or she resides.  Who are we to judge someone for exhibiting ethics or morals that are different from our own?  If we open ourselves up to this type of judgement, then we should be judged equally.

Wait a minute.  Aren’t we judged by our society for the way we behave?

We may not face the same level of scrutiny that leaders (business, politics, military, etc.) face when they behave counter to societal ethics, but we still tend to be judged by our neighbors, family and friends.  While some may feel that this behavior is common, there is often no less of an outcry just because it is expected.  In many instances, these individuals face a far greater shame (whether it be justified or not) because of their often public position.  They also face the scrutiny and distrust of their employees, who may lose the desire to behave ethically when they see their leader is behaving improperly (Stouten, Baillien, Van den Broeck, Camps, De Witte and Euwema, 2010).  

What this comes down to is that leaders set the tone for their employees and their community.  They help to define standards of ethics and face greater admonishment when they misbehave.  Of course, it does provide the rest of us with juicy gossip and the feeling that we are watching a living, breathing soap opera.  Not that it is okay to take pleasure in the misfortune of others; it is often just a basic human reaction.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth edition).
    Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H. & Euwema, M.
    (2010). Discouraging Bullying: The Role of Ethical Leadership and its Effects
    on the Work Environment. Journal of Business Ethics. 95(1). Pp. 17-27.

I thought it was interesting how the scandal with CIA director David Petraeus almost matched up with our lesson on ethics and leadership. The scandal broke because of a relationship with a writer that was oddly enough writing a book about Petraeus and his leadership. This story got me thinking though; do the ethics of our leaders really matter? Technically, yes, but not in the way most people think. Let me explain my point of view by comparing the Petraeus scandal to the three different approaches to making decision regarding moral conduct contained in Northouse: ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism (2013).

                First ethical egoism states “that a person should act to create the greatest good for himself or herself” (Northouse, 2013, p. 425). Basically, do what is best for you. Certainly this can be applied to the scandal, as Director Petraeus was thinking only about himself when he was engaging in the alleged affair. But if he had believed in ethical egoism, his actions are moral and ethical to him, or people who agree with ethical egoism, because he is bettering himself and that is all this is important.

                Second, utilitarianism states that we should behave a in a way that creates the most good for the most people, while producing the least amount of harm to others (Northouse, 2013). In this sense, you could argue the Petraeus situation two ways. One, the act itself (the affair) was only harming his wife and family (which I’m not downplaying) or two; his act harmed the CIA and the Army because his leadership was synonymous with the two organizations. Depending on which way the scandal is viewed can make his actions hugely unethical, by harming the integrity of everyone involved in the CIA and Army, or just make him look like a scumbag for cheating on his wife and family.

                Last, altruism is the belief that “actions are moral if their primary purpose is to promote the best interest of others” (Northouse, 2013, p. 425). Certainly by altruistic standards what Petraeus allegedly did was unethical and immoral. Now, look at the results of each category, they are all different.  

                I guess the point I am trying to make is that the ethical behavior of our leaders is subjective. There are many people that would have no problem with what Petraeus did because they do not feel that it affected his leadership at all. While on the other hand, some people would be so disgusted with the heinous act of adultery that they could never follow another order he gave ever again. I guess this example I bring up relates back to a common theme throughout this course, that followers play a much bigger role in leadership than we all think. In fact, a book by Barbara Kellerman called Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders states: “followers are more important to leaders than leaders are to followers, because it is followers that influence other followers to take action” (2008).  The differing groups of opinions in the scandal were caused by followers speaking their opinions. Petraeus, who has served in service of his country for 38 years, and has done remarkable things in difficult leadership in situations like Iraq and Afghanistan, was undone because of the opinions of followers, not because his leadership was ineffective.

                But do the opinions and views of followers really change the fact that Petraeus was a great and effective leader in difficult circumstances? No, Director Petraeus is a good leader; his leadership only became ineffective when people found out about his unethical behavior. This brings me back to my initial question: Do ethics and leadership really matter? Yes, but only when people find out or know about your unethical behavior. Petraeus was an effective leader one day, headed most likely to higher positions because of his success. Then, the next day he was a nobody. His leadership didn’t change, but what did change was his followers views of him. This is why I think ethics and leadership will be difficult to study going forward. The differing values of people, coupled with secrecy, and the emerging importance of followers is going to make studying the ethical aspects of leadership challenging due to the board scope of the subject. The real subject people should be studying is ethics and followership, because that is what really matters when it comes down to leadership ethics.

 

A link to a review of Kellerman’s book can be found at: http://www.ciozone.com/index.php/Management/Why-Followers-Matter.html

 

References:

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston:                 Harvard Business Press.

Northouse, P.G. (2013).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications

                Leadership ethics is relatively new but deals with who leaders are, and what leaders do (Northouse, 424 2013).  Many employers maybe concerned with ethics in the workplace.  The choices that leaders make and how they respond in a give circumstance are informed and directed by their ethics (Northhouse, 424 2013).  Ethics are concerned with the kinds of values and morals and individual or society finds desirable or appropriate (Northhouse, 424 2013).  There are five principles of ethical leadership which are respect, service, community, justice, and honesty.  These principles are at the core of ethical leadership. 

                Respect would be defined leaders that respect other and themselves.  Respect is complex and goes deeper than the respect that parents teach their children.  Have you ever been disrespected at work?  A leader that respects their followers is empathic, and tolerant of opposing points of view (Nothouse, 431 2013).  Do you always agree with your boss?  I don’t, but I know that she respects me and it goes a long way.     

                An ethical leader also serves others.  Ethical leaders should place their followers’ welfare at the top of their list (Penn State World Campus, Lesson 14, 2012).  I had an experience this past week with a supervisor that provided great service to me.  He works for government and assisted me with an issue.  He placed my needs in front of his, and stated that “we are civil servants, I am doing what I can to make people understand that.”

                Justice is another ethical principle.  Ethical leaders are concerned about issues of fairness and justice (Northhouse, 433 2013).  If a leader is just then they are able to treat all of their followers in a fair and equal way.  My current leader is just.  No members of my team are treated differently.  We are all expected to manage our workloads, and get our work done.  If it does not get completed, she treats the entire team in the same manner.

                A fourth principle of ethical leadership is honesty.  Honesty is important principle and best understood when we think about the opposite of honesty, dishonesty.  Dishonesty is a form of lying, and way of misrepresenting reality (Northouse, 435 2013).  I have worked under some leaders in the past that did not have much honesty.  I was a difficult situation, as the leader was actually stealing from a company I worked at.   He/she was eventually caught and terminated.  Honesty goes a long way with followers, but he/she did not care.   

                The last main principle of leadership deals with community.  A good ethical leader is build community by taking into account the purpose of everyone involved in a group and be attentive to the interests of the community and culture (Penn State World Campus, Lesson 14, 2012).  The current organization that I work for does a good job with building community.  We have yearly surveys where they ask employee what they can to build a better workplace.  They then provide the information to a senior leadership team.  They then come with solutions to address any issues.  They have done a good job over the years.

                Ethical principles should be taken lightly.  If a leader can respect others, service others, be just, be honest, and build community it will go a long way with the followers.  There are other principles, but these five principles are the core of ethical leadership principles.           

                    

 References

Northouse, P.G. (2013).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

PSU World Campus. (2012). Lesson 14: Ethics and Leadership. Retrieved from:

                https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/014_lesson

The study of ethics in leadership and moral reasoning in particular is very interesting to me.  Ethics and values help drive many of the daily decisions we make in both our work and personal lives.  One area that intrigues me is the idea of ethics and how they fit into the sporting world.  I’m sure many might argue that today they really don’t fit in at all.  Aside from the professional arena in sports though, I do think athletics provides coaches and players many chances to display where their individual values and beliefs align.  This can range anywhere from the athlete who chooses to take performance enhancing drugs to youth coaches who volunteer their time to help young kids learn the values of teamwork and discipline.

Moral reasoning refers to the process leaders use to make decisions about ethical and unethical behaviors and the way in which people solve moral problems (Penn State World Campus, 2012).  There was a particular instance about 10 years ago where I witnessed a leader that had to make a difficult moral decision.  I had just started coaching high school football and our head coach was faced with a dilemma.  Our star player had just been caught drinking the week the state playoffs were beginning.  Our coach decided to suspend the player for breaking team rules and the law itself.  This choice was met with a large outcry from much of the community.  Most people were more concerned about winning a game rather than understanding the valuable, but tough lesson this young man was going to learn.  The team went on to lose this game which caused the negative reaction from the community to increase.

That particular choice our coach had made was an example of a leader confronting a moral problem at a post-conventional level (Penn State World Campus, 2012).  He was able to see the big picture and realize that there were important things in life than football.  He had worked very hard to help the team get to that point, so I know it was a tough move to make.  The community on the other hand seemed to be at the pre-conventional stage (Penn State World Campus, 2012). They were more concerned with their own self interest rather than what was truly right for the team and that individual player.  These players all learned that choices in life have real consequences.  It wasn’t easy for them to accept at the time, but many told me years later it was a valuable lesson learned.

Unfortunately, it seems like the higher the level of sports one gets to, the tougher it becomes to act morally when it comes to certain tough choices.  Studies show that the longer one is in athletics, the more affected are one’s moral reasoning (University of Idaho, 2005).  Everyone knows PSU just had to deal with the fallout from faulty moral reasoning by certain leaders, but they are not alone.  The New Orleans Saints’ recent bounty investigation is another example where winning trumped doing what was truly right.  The win at all costs culture has much to do with the choices being made in athletics today.  Athlete populations score significantly lower on moral reasoning inventories than do non-athlete populations (University of Idaho, 2005).  It is certainly interesting how a culture can affect how people feel about moral reasoning.

 

Penn State World Campus. (2012). Lesson 14 : Ethics and Leadership. Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/14_lesson/04_page.html

University of Idaho. (2005) Moral Reasoning in Athlete Populations. Retrieved from: http://www.educ.uidaho.edu/center_for_ethics/research_fact_sheet.htm