Lord Acton once stated, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This has been the guiding mantra for many entering the field of management or leadership. Power tends to be viewed as this malevolent force, yet in truth, power in and of itself is neutral. Rather, how we vector that power towards the pursuit of personal and institutional goals determines whether it is malevolent, neutral, or positive.
Ethics and Power Intersect
Reiley and Jacobs (2016) wisely assert that both referent and reward power are absolutely vital for leadership to effectively exercise as they engage in the process of management. The use of prompts through these power mechanisms promotes organizational citizenship behaviors within the firm. One can observe here that at this moment, there is still room for ethical or unethical decision-making and action. Leaders desiring an ethical organization staffed by moral employees must exude these values through their own words, decisions, and deeds. There is only one alternative here, and that is an organization built upon the values of manipulative Machiavellianism and destructive leadership. Where matters pertaining to morality and ethics are concerned, we are almost entirely incapable of simply being neutral.
Contrast
Enter Leo Tolstoy; diverging from
this viewpoint that leaders should shape ethical organizations through their
actions, Tolstoy according to Kellerman (2010) espoused a deterministic
fatalism. Taking this view to its logical endpoint, whether in positions of
leadership or not, we simply do what we do without any true consideration to
the why behind our actions. The actions and outcomes have already been
predetermined, so there really is no use in pausing to reflect. With this,
Tolstoy went on to embrace an anarchical model of governance. This sounds
extreme, yet in many work centers, we can readily observe leaders choosing to
embrace a laissez-faire leadership methodology. C.G. Brown (1955) rightly
argues that anarchy can be substituted for the term laissez-faire. Here
presents a frightening scenario where no consideration to ethics, oversight, or
power is given. Rather, individuals in the absence of responsible authority are
permitted to do what they please with minimal governing and restraining
structure. The thought of an uninvolved supervisor may sound enticing for some,
but there can be no long-term accomplishment or furtherance of goals in a
system of this nature.
A model worthy of pursuit
Gini and Green
(2013) highlight for us the example of Abraham Lincoln. Though Abraham Lincoln
was both poorly educated and prepared to take on the position of President of
the United States when compared to his predecessors and successors. Ross (2009)
highlights that Lincoln balanced his fears of mob violence and esteem for the
law with an understanding that he must transform the law and organizational
climate of his era. In pursuing this, he properly wielded the magnificent power
of his office because of his long-standing practice of both physical and moral
courage. In essence, he not only thought virtuously he also followed these
thoughts up with forceful and proper action. Leaders must learn from Lincoln’s
example that ethics cannot simply be an academic pursuit where theories of what
constitutes right and wrong are considered via the meandering dialogues of
academicians. Instead, we must put our views to work for the betterment of our
spheres of influence.
Application
When studying monumental leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Winston Churchill, and many others, one can easily fall into the trap of realizing that he or she is no Abraham Lincoln. From there, it is a slide down a slippery slope. If one is not Abraham Lincoln and will never reach that magnitude of greatness, what is the purpose of even trying? Levin and Boaks (2012) capture this sentiment. They write that when discussing leadership we can at times ascribe too much virtue to the position turning it into an impossible ideal that no ordinary human can achieve. They caution against this warning that as we think about and discuss leadership, we must temper our rhetoric so that us ordinary types have something that we are able to pursue and achieve. Thus, we should view the aforementioned leaders and others as the ideal but realize that in our homes and work centers we too are capable of effective leadership even if we never personally realize the lofty accomplishments of those whom we admire.
References
Reiley, P. J., & Jacobs, R. R. (2016). Ethics Matter: Moderating Leaders’ Power Use and Followers’ Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1), 69–81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24703756
Kellerman, B. (2010). Leadership: Essential selections on power, authority, and influence (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
BROWNE, C. G. (1955). “LAISSEZ-FAIRE” OR “ANARCHY” IN LEADERSHIP? ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 13(1), 61–66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42581576
Ross, D. (2009). Lincoln and the Ethics of Emancipation: Universalism, Nationalism, Exceptionalism. The Journal of American History, 96(2), 379–399. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25622298
Gini, A. & Green, R. M. (2013). Ten Virtues of Outstanding Leaders: Leadership and Character. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Levine, M. P., & Boaks, J. (2014). What does ethics have to do with leadership? Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 225–242. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24033265
