Ethics and Power

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 (1^st    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