< return to index

The Moral and Ethical Component of the Leader's Image

by Dr. Larry V. Ort

Within this paper, I wish to expand upon some of the topics and questions that Dr. Zaichenko has raised. More specifically, I will address three questions: 1) Are moral and ethical behaviors and attributes an essential component of a leader's image? 2) If so, can we promote the development of moral and ethical behaviors and attributes? 3) Assuming that we answer in the affirmative, are there any limitations that impede such development?

Are moral and ethical behaviors and attributes an essential component of a leader's image?

While social scientists may debate the degree of importance to be accorded the moral and ethical behaviors and attributes of a leader, there is general agreement that they are important features of leadership. This agreement is long standing; it is rooted in the wisdom of the ages expressed by philosophers and various world religions.

In The Republic, Plato reasons those who are best able to guard the laws and institutions of the state should be the guardians, or the rulers. And those best able to guard the laws of the state will possess perfect vision of the other world which qualifies them to order the laws regarding beauty, goodness, and justice. Further, they possess a love of knowledge; they recognize that true knowledge is eternal, never varying from generation to generation. They love the truth and truthfulness; they will never intentionally entertain falsehood. Those suited to rule, ever longing after the whole of things human and divine, should never act from illiberality or meanness. They should have a good memory, should be quick to learn, noble, and gracious; they should be the friends of truth, justice, courage, and temperance. The state should be entrusted to one with such attributes only when one has been perfected by years and education. For these reasons, Plato concludes, the philosopher-king is the only one suited to rule the state.

Christianity

Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, but who can find a trustworthy man? A righteous man who walks in his integrity - how blessed are his sons after him. (Proverbs 20.6-7).

In Matthew 22.34-40, a lawyer (scribe, rabbi) comes to Jesus to test him and asks which of the commandments is the great commandment:
But when the Pharisees heard that he [Jesus] had silenced the Sad'ducees, they came together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (RSV)

According to one rabbi, the law of Moses consists of 613 different laws. But in this passage, Jesus reduces these to two laws. It should be noted that Jesus was not the first to render such a reduction, for David had reduced the law to 11 commandments (Psalm 15.2-5), Isaiah had reduced the law to six (Isaiah 33.15), and Micah to three (Micah 6.8).

These commandments to love God and our neighbor are grounded in the framework of righteousness and justice. Righteousness/justice attains when the duties or the obligations attendant upon the parties standing in relationship to one another are fulfilled, whether that relationship be with God or with one's neighbor. The premier duty or obligation is the obligation of love, for when one loves someone, one acts for, or on behalf of the other, that is, one acts compassionately in the other's best interest. I say "compassionately" for a purpose; if compassion is not present, even though one is convinced that one is acting on behalf of the other, then love is absent and some other purpose or end is being served. This concept of love also carries with it a social dimension, for love is to transform and to create the just society, the good society where peace and justice embrace; it is to create the "shalom" community. The ancient Hebraic notion of justice is unlike any other for it carries with it the notion of "creating" the just society as opposed to "preserving" the rights and privileges of those within society.

Dave Ulrich, professor at the School of Business, University of Michigan, emphasizes the need for leaders who possess credibility and who can create organizational capability:

Successful leaders of the future must be personally credible. Credible leaders have the personal habits, values, traits, and competencies to engender trust and commitment from those who take their direction…. Successful leaders of the future must also be able to create organizational capability. Capability comes from leaders who are able to shape, structure, implement, and improve organizational processes to meet business goals. (Hesselbein, Francis, Goldsmith, Marshall, and Beckhard, Richard, Eds. The Leader of the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996, p. 215.)

According to Ulrich, two sets of diagnostic questions should be raised when we are considering whether one is suited to lead:

1. Does this leader have credibility with those he or she works with? Do individuals trust, respect, admire, and enjoy working for this leader? Do those who work with this leader as subordinates, peers, …feel a personal and emotional bond with him or her?
2. Does this leader have the ability to make the organization succeed? Does she or he have the ability to shape a vision, create commitment to the vision, build a plan of execution, develop capabilities, and hold people accountable for making things happen? (Ibid, 217)

Alfred C. DeCrane, Jr, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Texaco, states, "At different times, leaders are judged on what they seek to do, how they pursue their goals, and what they accomplish. More than anything, these criteria are outgrowths of the fundamental measure of a leader: the content of his or her character (Ibid, p. 251). DeCrane further holds that the honesty and integrity of real leaders stems from their character as opposed to the requirements of the law. For such leaders, the means one uses to attain a goal are as important as attaining the goal: "Leaders remain committed to core values that are uncompromised by a relentless attempt to achieve aims-again underscoring the importance of character to leaders of any era" (Ibid, p. 252). According to DeCrane, "integrity of character is paramount" as is evidenced in his quotation of a former head of the New York Stock Exchange, "The public may be willing to forgive us for mistakes in judgment, but it will not forgive us for mistakes in motive" (Ibid, p.252).

• Character: the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation.
• Integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values.

Can we promote the development of moral and ethical behaviors and attributes?

Virtue Ethics

Aristotle holds that "the good of man is the exercise of his faculties in accordance with excellence or virtue." The good toward which all other acts aim is, as Aristotle calls it, eudaimonia, which is usually translated as "happiness", or "excellence." But it further conveys the notions of well-being and success. Aristotle defines it as an "activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue," as "the best and noblest and pleasantest thing in the world."

Given that man is a social animal, Aristotle further argues that happiness has a social dimension, and, correspondingly, the virtues that ultimately lead to happiness also have social dimensions, e.g., truth, justice, and courage. Hence, great emphasis is placed upon educating persons in the virtues. The virtues are attained through training, for as Aristotle puts it, through such training, the virtues become a natural part of our character. Acting virtuously derives from ones character; the virtuous person does what he is supposed to do because he or she desires to act in this manner.

But there is more to understanding what Aristotle means by "virtue." Aristotle defines "virtue" as follows:

Virtue, then, is a habit or trained faculty of choice, the characteristic of which lies in moderation or observance of the mean relatively to the persons concerned, as determined by reason, i.e., by the reason by which the prudent man would determine it. And it is a moderation, firstly, inasmuch as it comes in the middle or mean between two vices, one on the side of excess, the other on the side of defect; and secondly, inasmuch as, while these vices fall short of or exceed the due measure in feeling and action, it finds and chooses the mean, middling, or moderate amount. Regarded in its essence, therefore, or according to the definition of its nature, virtue is a moderation or middle state, but viewed in its relation to what is best and right it is the extreme of perfection. (Nichomachean Ethics)

Note that virtue entails acting in observance of the mean relative to particular persons. This takes into account differences in individual nature, i.e., what may be courageous for one person may strike utter fear in the heart of another. What is important is that each person lives in accord with the appropriate mean relative to his or her own person.

Aristotle's virtue ethics is commendable. It provides us with an account of the moral virtues, and it stresses the importance of education and training in relation to these virtues. It also recognizes the importance and place of self-realization, that is, of becoming all one can possibly become. There is some rapprochement between virtue ethics and the ethical views of Hume, Kant, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Ancient virtue ethics emphasized the four "cardinal" virtues: temperance, justice, courage, and wisdom. To these Aquinas and others added the "theological" virtues: faith, hope, and charity (love). But it should be noted that the virtues for these ethical theorists were set forth within the context of elucidating what is necessary if one is to fulfill one's moral duties or obligations. In contrast, Aristotle runs his analysis in the opposite direction; he is concerned to elucidate the concept of happiness, or eudaimonia.

Kohlberg

Kohlberg believed...and was able to demonstrate through studies...that people progressed in their moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of stages. He believed that there were six identifiable stages which could be more generally classified into three levels.

Kohlberg's classification can be outlined in the following manner:

The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.

Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage.

Assuming that we answer in the affirmative, are there any limitations that impede such development?

But as one moves into the ethical stage of existence, one soon learns that one is incapable of living a wholly ethical existence. For example, one is incapable of living out fully God's commands to love God and to love one's neighbor. The realization of one's inability to meet these ethical demands leads to another crisis-a crisis of suffering, guilt, and despair. And it is in this crisis that one must will to enter the religious stage of existence; and again, so willing requires another leap of faith.