Moral Vision
For moral judgments or ethical decision-making to exist, there must be moral vision. Gini and Green (2013) assert that moral vision is the quality that enables leaders to understand why they stand for a certain set of values in the first place. Moral vision thus comes before any ethical reasoning; it is the philosophy that powers our ethical thought processes. That philosophy provides us the space and vocabulary necessary to think a certain way is a difficult concept to grasp. A.J. Mandt (1994) writing on Immanuel Kant provides an example of how this works in a different context. He asserted that Kant’s discussions on space and time opened up the avenue of thought necessary for Einstein to later discover the Theory of Relativity and break the traditional rules of Newtonian physics. Though applied differently, moral vision enables this same sort of reasoning where the mental pathways necessary for ethical thoughts are opened up. Leaders capable of tremendous moral judgments are thus leaders who have already established a working moral vision.
James Burke
Gini and Green (2013) introduce one such leader who faced a terrible situation and made excellent moral judgments. James Burke led Johnson and Johnson during a time of crisis. Someone tampered with their Tylenol and had laced products with cyanide. This resulted in the deaths of numerous unsuspecting customers. Many thought that Tylenol would cease to exist as a brand. Rather than worrying about stockholder profits or the reputation of the brand, James Burke courageously recalled all Tylenol that was on the market. When faced with media scrutiny he refused to become evasive or defensive. Rather, he laid out his moral judgment and accepted responsibility for correcting the situation. This straightforward honesty and acceptance of responsibility are two critical hallmarks of a leader.
Winston Churchill
Gini and Green (2013) rightly recognize that the distinctive leadership qualities of Winston Churchill were his moral vision and his judgment. Churchill was at one point before World War II a deeply unpopular public official because he recognized Hitler’s Nazi Germany for the terror that it was. Many in Britain at that time were sympathetic to the Fascist cause and openly courted Hitler’s favor. Those that did not go as far as that remembered the previous World War and wanted to do everything within their power to placate Hitler so as to avoid another costly conflict. Churchill the visionary that he was recognized that while war is an atrocity, it was his responsibility to ensure that his nation was prepared for the coming fight. He went against the prevailing popular opinion and pushed for what was right. For him, leadership was not a popularity contest; rather, leadership meant he had an obligation to do what was right despite public animosity to that course of action.
Rosa Parks
James Burke accepted responsibility and Winston Churchill went against popular public opinion, but both men were wealthy, powerful, and had a group of loyal supporters. According to Michael Schudson (2012), Rosa Parks was a long-time civil rights activist and NAACP member even before the incident on the bus. After a long day of working, she seated herself at the front of the black section of the bus and was soon ordered to the back of the bus when enough white people had filled the bus and did not want to sit next to her. At that moment, Rosa Parks courageously took a stand by remaining seated. She was a woman isolated, vulnerable, and without a crowd of loyal supporters, yet she continued to act upon her moral judgment even though she was completely alone.
Confucius
In her discussion on Confucius, Kellerman (2010) reveals that Confucius forsook personal comforts as he pursued his cause and advocated for a model of leadership emphasizing moral vision and moral judgment. Leaders must be willing to lead for reasons that extend beyond the perks in order to effectively lead followers. In 2009, I was a brand new airman in the Air Force. In my first three years, I was primarily supervised by two non-commissioned officers. One never asked me to do anything that he himself would not do. If the requirement was to clean our work center, he would ask me to take out the trash while he ran the vacuum. When cleaning the breakroom, he would often clean the refrigerator while I mopped the floor. The other non-commissioned officer frequently reminded me that rank has its privileges. One I remember fondly and seek to emulate; the other serves as an example of how not to lead.
Plato / Socrates
Kellerman (2010) introduces us to Plato and Socrates. In his work, the Republic Plato captures Socrates' last evening alive. His supporters are urging that he (Socrates) take the easy way out so as to avoid execution. However, to the very end, Socrates uses the opportunity to teach his students through the use of expert questions (we refer to this as the Socratic method). Socrates understood that for moral vision and judgment to continue it must be passed along to the next generation of leaders. Sometimes, leaders can fall into the temptation of viewing younger up-and-coming employees as sources of competition. However, this is not the case. Young employees present opportunities for mentorship and the establishment of multi-generational moral visions and moral judgments.
Saint Thomas Beckett
Finally, we come to one of my favorite leaders who exhibited moral vision and moral judgment, Thomas Beckett. According to Catholic tradition, Thomas Beckett did not start out as a leader that we describe as having a strong sense of moral vision and moral judgment. He was a friend of King Henry II, and the king appointed him to the role of Archbishop of Canterbury in order to have a puppet in a key religious position. However, on being appointed to the office, Thomas Beckett recognized the gravity of the role he had assumed. When King Henry II attempted to exert control over the church and lower-ranking bishops Beckett pushed back on the incursion. For this, he was eventually martyred. In life, we are not always ready to assume a position of leadership; however, in these circumstances, we must recognize that role that we have been placed in and act accordingly.
How do these individuals fit ideal leader characteristics
Leaders are humans and as a result are fallible. Further, leaders will exhibit both strengths and weaknesses. As such, we must look to a number of leaders in order to establish a mosaic of what effective leadership looks like. Honesty and acceptance of responsibility have to be the foundation of one’s moral vision and judgment. Leadership often is not fair; leaders can and should be held responsible for mistakes that they themselves do not make. This is due to the fact that as a leader, they have accepted responsibility for the decisions made by their organization and the people within the organization. Second, leaders must be willing to make decisions that though right may prove deeply unpopular as did Winston Churchill, and like Rosa Parks they must be willing to pursue these decisions even if they are alone in doing so. The life of Confucius reveals that effective leaders throw out the idea of rank has its privileges and instead forsake their own comforts for the advancement of the people and institutions they lead. Then, like Socrates, they must see young employees as the future of their moral vision and moral judgment and not as a threat. Finally, like Thomas Beckett, we will on occasion be called to lead when we are not ready or when others think they can easily manipulate our leadership. In these instances, we must recognize the situation for what it is and do what must be done.
Expectations for Organizations
Albertzarte (2012) states, “Moral principles are not sufficient to guide moral thought and action.” We can know and understand what is right, but we must also be capable of making judgments and taking action. Organizations should not simply have a code of ethical conduct on their website, they must back their words up with actual moral decision-making in the marketplace. Lawton and Paez (2015) acknowledge two facts. First ethical organizations are comprised of ethical employees, and second, an organization’s views on matters pertaining to morals and ethics are shaped by its leaders. Thus, consumers and stakeholders must expect that firms make an effort to retain those who exhibit moral vision and judgment and hire those who have this same capacity.
Levels of Accountability
Very often when something goes wrong, we search for a specific individual to hold accountable for the incident. Sometimes, this is correct, and in other times, we pursue this at the expense of holding the organizational culture responsible for enabling a climate that permitted a moral lapse. Holding organizations and individuals accountable is an imperative, but leaders must view situations in their entirety. Holding a single individual accountable for a moral lapse often fails to recognize the totality of the problem which in turn fails to actually resolve the root cause.
References
Gini, A., & Green, R. M. (2013). Ten virtues of outstanding leaders : leadership and character. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Inc.,.
Mandt, A. J. (1990). The Giants of Philosophy: Immanuel Kant. Carmichael & Carmichael Inc.
Kellerman, B. (2010). Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Schudson, M. (2012). Telling stories about Rosa Parks. Contexts, 11(3), 22–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41960839
Ahmad, A. (2022, January 5). The long road to diversifying PBS. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved January 26, 2022, from https://www.cjr.org/analysis/pbs-cpb-diversity.php
Albertzart, M. (2013). Principle-Based Moral Judgement. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16(2), 339–354. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24478801
Lawton, A., & Páez, I. (2015). Developing a Framework for Ethical Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(3), 639–649. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24703528
No comments:
Post a Comment