Plato described the ideal philosopher-kings who provide wise and judicious leadership. In the sixteenth century Italy’s Niccolo Machiavelli illuminated what most have applied as the practical side of political leadership where strong leaders could justify any means to achieve and sustain power.
‘Great Man’ theories of leadership
The ‘great man theories’ dominated in the early part of the last century. The key idea then was that leaders were born, not nurtured. Later, during the period of the great depression, the ‘group theory’ emerged with emphasis on group leadership.
In the 1940s and 1950s ‘trait theory’ re-emerged once more but dispelling the notion that there was any such thing as inherent leadership. In the middle of the century, ‘situational leadership’ - which promoted the idea that leaders could use decision trees to make decisions - was briefly popular.
In the 1980s leaders were seen as men who led their organisations or enterprises towards excellence. Research in this period tried to find out the right list of traits, behavior patterns, group facilitation strategies, and culture-shaping practices for would-be leaders. This is the so called ‘theory of excellence’.
Similarly, political sociologists distinguished leadership from holding an office or position and likened it to infusing values and purpose into an organisation.
Fragmented as all these eras of leadership theory were, there did not seem to be any reason whatsoever to deny they were all looking at the same ‘elephant’ from different perspectives.
James MacGregor Burns, a historian and political scientist, developed the model of transformational leadership which included an ethical and moral dimension. He was the first to assert that true leadership not only creates change and achieves goals within the environment, but changes the people involved in the necessary actions for the better as well; both followers and leaders are ennobled - both raise each other to higher levels of motivation and morality.
Taking from all these leadership perceptions we can re-organise and surmise leadership as both a science and a habit – a virtue. A virtue that is a conglomeration of important competencies: prudence, sagacity, justice, fortitude, temperance, humility, friendship, simplicity, trustworthiness, coaching capability, industriousness, order, sincerity, patience, and so on.
The more competencies a leader has the greater a leader he or she is. Can one lead with a minimum of virtues, you may ask? In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may well be king; but a leader with serious limitations will also have a defective vision of the ends of man and hence lead his kith and kin to the pit.
Can we have leaders with all the virtues? And, are all the virtues necessary? The answer to both questions is no. There are certain competencies more important for a business leader than for a parent or a political leader. An effective leader must emphasise the key virtues most important to the task at hand. Needless to say, all virtues tend to be intertwined. Hence, building any virtue will always mean building many others at the same time.
As a study, leadership is a science that gives knowledge of the content of leadership per se. As a virtue, it is to be lived and practised in every aspect and endeavour of mankind. Leaders must live a virtuous life and in doing so they become the direction, the beacon that influences the behaviour of others.
A virtuous leader evokes the right motivation
A virtuous leader evokes from followers a certain motivation towards co-operating in the vision and purpose of the institution. Such motivation can either be extrinsic, intrinsic or transcendental. Transcendental motivation refers broadly to the satisfaction felt as a result of personal contribution, through work, of achievement of the company’s mission. Transcendental leadership therefore most aptly elaborates the notion of the virtuous leader; only a virtuous leader can evoke such motivation in followers.
There is a German saying: “The further back one sees the further his vision of the future.’ Does the state of world affairs not beg many questions of our past leadership? In today’s world many people are devoid of purpose and means. There is a persistent gap between the haves and have-nots - only 10% of the earth’s population controls over 90% of the earth’s resources and means. There is great technological progress in the world and at the same time widespread destitution around us. Is man as a whole happier today for his all his progress (which is indeed ever greater than the past)?
A keen analysis will certainly tell us that this is not the leadership we have been looking for over the centuries. We need leadership that will liberate, empower and bring to many more people the ability of attaining their own needs.
An even sadder reflection meets us when we consider the panorama of African leadership. Looking at it soberly leaves a bitter taste: that leaders of our nations and organisations have been busy amassing personal wealth rather than growing societal wealth. More have become poorer in Africa at the altar of leaders’ selfish greed.
Leadership is an exercise of influence over another or others towards a common end. What about ethics? It is concerned with the deepest meaning of the real world - the ‘ends of man’. It is the practical study or science of the morality of the deliberate and free human actions. Even if particular human actions seem devoid of an end, we must admit that from an overall perspective of man, every action has an end or terminus. A leader, therefore is one who imbues ethics very deeply - otherwise he or she will lead the others to a very limited or wrong end.
Which raises the question: what is the end of man? Where should leaders aim to take their followers? What are the ends of our leadership?
Let me answer that the end of man is not material (economic) wellbeing only, nor is it physical wellbeing only, nor is it any limited object/subject. It is happiness. All ends or purposes of the vast pursuits of man and woman, material or otherwise, are just means to happiness, a delight that resides in the will of man. This is the wisdom of Aristotle.
Possessing many cars, for instance, is only a transitory happiness. Sensual happiness, which is the happiness a car would give you, is not an essential aspect of true happiness since true human happiness consists in an infinite thing.
It is this ultimate happiness that leaders must seek for their followers. And what is the ultimate happiness of Man or Woman? First let me say that happiness is a delight in the will that arises from having achieved what is appropriate and due by nature, which in turn is what we call a perfection. Ultimate happiness can only come from ultimate perfection.
The totality of incentives
For example, the CEO of a business enterprise must not only concern himself with material incentives but also the totality of incentives, a combination of both moral and material.
It is in the moral that some management scientists believe is the source of transcendental leadership, rather than simply transformative leadership, which aims at the subordination of staff through mainly material incentives.
A CEO must lead men and women who share deeply and have fun in following the organisational vision and are totally committed to its mission. When the leader has high integrity and has ensured that trustworthiness is deeply rooted in the culture of an organisation, it is fun to work for that organisation despite all the difficulties to be encountered.
Does this mean that material things - roads, technology innovation, profits, material incentives - are to be underestimated? On the contrary, they must be sought after with the clear understanding that they are a means to a moral happiness. Thus, one will always be able to incentivise or influence others with the ultimate purpose of work rather than the limited goals only.
Keep in mind that there are many leaders who have ignored this crucial orientation. For instance, think of Hitler. He put one of his main objectives or ends of his leadership in the pursuit of ‘the purity of race’ who should own the world and eradicate the less endowed species such as those of Jews or Africans or the maimed or the lesser stock of men in general – a quite gross aim; and with disastrous results! Let his example reflect upon all those with similarly deficient goals.
Ethical leadership is good for business
For any business leader, ethical leadership (transcendental leadership) is good for business, particularly as a long-term growth strategy. It also avoids legal problems and legal fees! Think of Enron and WorldCom; or indeed our own Trade Bank and Trust Bank. In addition to having the correct ultimate goal, ethical leadership contributes to employee commitment, satisfaction, comfort, and even fun. People enjoy working for an ethical organization, and it helps the organisation attract and retain the best employees.
Finally, employees in an organisation led by an executive ethical leader will imitate the behavior of their leader and therefore the employees will be more ethical themselves.
Jim Collins, of Good to Great fame (a management tome that has sold more than 2 million copies worldwide) explains that the characteristics of ‘Level 5’ leaders (highest level) are humility and an endearing will power. Translate this to read that great leaders have profound humility and a sacrificing love for what they do and those they lead.
How sad, then, that we are surrounded by such weak leaders; people ready to compromise the long-term good, the ultimate good, for transient and destructive ‘happiness’; and with them so many people in a stampede towards their own destruction. Think of the Rwandese Genocide, think of the never-ending war in Palestine.
Further, think of the corruption prevalent in so many companies and societies around us that result in so much injustice to their contemporaries. They deny many, many people their right to pursue their ends freely and with just reward for their efforts.
If we must have leaders, let us seek ethical leaders; those who seek the greatest good of their followers. The followers must on the other hand undertake to suffer the consequences of seeking, together with their leaders, the ultimate good, the greatest good. The ephemeral good is a conflagration that delights but for a moment and leaves only ashes. The pursuit of the endearing good, the ultimate good of man, will always bring an endearing delight.
Ethical leadership demands both courage and prudence. It seems to me that the world is full of courageous bandits and timid leaders. Could they be birds of a feather?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
