Published: July 18, 2008 04:59 pm            

McDONALD: Ethics is everyday part for all in leadership

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the first of a two-part series on ethics in leadership. The second part will appear in Sunday’s edition.



“Divorced from ethics, leadership is reduced to management and politics to mere technique.”

— James MacGregor Burns



•••



The Rev. Bob Russell of Southeast Christian Church in Louisville said “contrary to what most people think, people are not basically good, they are basically evil. We have free will and without guidance, discipline and accountability it is easy to fall into evil ways.”

It is not a pleasant thought that being evil is in our nature and easy, however it does, in a general way, explain unethical behavior of leadership in corporations, non-profits, schools and the church. It is easy to be evil.

If one accepts the premise that people are inherently and by their nature evil, that premise speaks boldly that boundaries must be set to keep one from inclining toward natural tendencies of evil. Terry Waite, former emissary of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Beirut hostage said of leadership “a leader must be willing to do the things that he asks of his followers.” I have quoted both Russell and Waite because I have met them both and had lengthy discussions on leadership with them and I admire both as leaders and inherently evil human beings who, for the most part, structured their lives to shun evil tendencies.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that “what is right for one is right for all.” One can interpret this, as living one's life as if your actions were to become the universal standard. Living a moral life in obedience of the Christian standard of the Ten Commandments is expected of self-professed Christians. Applying that standard on a daily basis in corporate and all walks of life is challenging (given our evil nature) and is often murky if one accepts Kant's philosophy. For example, if one adapts a Kantian philosophy and lives by the Ten Commandments honoring the commandment of thou shall not kill, then one would certainly have challenges as a politician or magistrate with both abortion and the death penalty.

Fortunately, I do not have those types of decisions and moral considerations to make in daily life. However, one must concede that daily personal life and corporate life are replete with issues and challenges that present shades of gray where mitigating circumstances cloud a decision.

Howard Gardner speaks of the ethical mind being minds of developing professional expertise, the ability to synthesize, creativity and the respectful mind. To paraphrase Gardner, the respectful mind is about forming relationships with various types of people, while not forgiving of all, others are given the benefit of the doubt. Gardner updates Kant's philosophy by stating “What kind of a person, worker and citizen do I want to be? If all workers in my profession adopted the mind-set I have, or if everyone did what I do, what would the world be like?

For one to establish a personal credo or a guideline of ethical principles to follow, an awareness of self weaknesses and strengths and the ability to manage one' self is required. Daniel Goleman speaks of this ability as essential to an emotionally intelligent leader. Leaders must be self-aware, empathetic, self-managing, must be socially aware and have skills to manage relationships. Their credibility is at stake in all their spheres of influence..

Gerald Kouzes and Barry Posner write in their book Credibility, “If leaders are not clear about what they believe in they are much more likely to change their positions with every fad or trend. Professions such as law, medicine, nursing and education have codes of ethics by which their practitioners operate. For the education profession, the National Education Association has a code of ethics for an educator which reads in part:

“The educator strives to help each student realize his or her potential as a worthy and effective member of society. The educator therefore works to stimulate the spirit of inquiry, the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, and the thoughtful formulation of worthy goals.”

Higher up the food chain of education there is a code of ethics for both principals and superintendents. The code of ethics for superintendents lists a series of standards to uphold which include (and they are listed by their standard number):

“1. Makes the education and well being of students the fundamental value of all decision making

“11. Accepts responsibility and accountability for one's own actions and behaviors

“12. Commits to serving others above one's self”

James Clawson describes three levels of leadership. A Level One leader is visible behavior, Level Two is conscious thought, but it is the Level Three leader who holds values and beliefs. Clawson describes Level Three leadership as somewhere between conscious and subconscious thought. Level Three leadership “controls our thinking and clearly our judgments about right or wrong” Clawson identifies an Ethical Leadership Litmus Test for leaders which includes questions the Level Three leader asks self for example:

“Would I like to have my actions reported tomorrow in a national newspaper?

“Would my employees and stakeholders argue publicly that I kept my promises to them?

“Would my stakeholders argue that they are being treated fairly in the organization?”



With presidential elections in the near future and as we read with interest the actions of local, state, national and world leaders in politics, education, corporate and non-profit worlds, these are a few thoughts to keep in mind.



Tim McDonald can be reached at timothy.mcdonald@agsfaculty.indwes.edu

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.