The Amorality of Leadership
Defining Amoral
1a : having
or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
b : being
neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the
sphere to which moral judgments apply
As I’ve suggested
in earlier posts, there are many important words and concepts that are broad
and interpreted in different ways. Love, freedom, justice, many of the things
we hold most dear are not universal in their meaning or application. I strongly
believe that leadership is among these important, yet ambiguous concepts.
Although I’ll
briefly discuss some of the major theories of what leadership is, the focus of
this post will be on the relationship between leadership and morality, or more
specifically the lack thereof.
Defining Leadership
I’m taking most
of the different theories of leadership from “Leadership Theory and Practice”
by Peter G. Northouse, with one notable exception from the Leadership Challenge
by James Kouzes and Barry Posner. We’ll start with this exception as it’s my
favorite.
Kouzes and Posner suggest that
leadership is a relationship, an
agreement or acceptance between the leader and the followers. What I appreciate
about this idea is it answers a few of my own struggles trying to grasp at
leadership. As an example, how can some people feel to their core that Obama
was a true leader and Trump isn’t, while others feel just as strongly the other
way around? Both men are Presidents of the United States, wielding all the
authority thereof. Both have millions of supporters, how can one be a leader
and the other not? The idea of leadership as a relationship answers that
question, that both have people who accept that relationship, and others who do
not.
It allows for all types of leaders,
different methods, different strategies, different ideals. If leadership is a
relationship, all it takes is the willingness of someone to take on the mantle
of leadership and others willing to recognize that mantle. However, leadership
is broad enough that there are, and should be, other definitions.
Leadership is a trait(s): The most
traditional, this is the belief that qualities of leadership are inherent. Monarchies, dynasties, any work of fiction
with a “chosen” one are examples of leadership as something one is born with.
Leadership is a skill(s): In contrary
to leadership being inherent, it is a skill to be learned, practiced, and
perfected. This suggests that anyone, or at least many people, can become leaders.
Leadership is a behavior(s):
Regardless of one’s ability level, this suggests that leadership is best
defined by how one acts
above anything else.
Servant leadership: This theory is
based around the ideal that a leader is in essence a follower themselves, that
they follow and act on the behalf of
those they lead.
Transformational leadership: This
theory in contrast suggests that the leader taps into the underlying motives,
making a true connection with
the desires of their followers and through that bring out more out of them.
There are many other theories and
beliefs out there. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, we can believe
that leadership has elements of multiple or even all of these. Even if we agree
on a definition above, we may still have very different ideas on leadership. If we decide that leadership is a skill,
what skill(s) best define leadership? Same with behaviors, how should a leader
act?
Where Morality Falls?
What I want to emphasize though is in
none of these definitions is morality promised,
is it guaranteed. Throughout history, ruthlessness
has been a trait of many historic leaders. Manipulation
is a skill that can be learned and used to convince others to follow us. There
have been leader who acted reprehensibly,
but not only did their followers accept it, but emulated it. On the surface
being a servant leader seems selfless, but what if the “servants” are a hate group? From a stereotypical schoolyard bully with a
couple of other kids backing them up, to a tyrant over an entire empire, we can
apply the different definitions above to them just as readily as to saints and
martyrs.
Where then does morality fall? Where
do ethics come in? I would contend that it comes from elsewhere. It is true
that many of us do look for morality from our leaders, who look for
genuineness, compassion, self-sacrifice. It usually serves a leader well to
show some level of integrity, some sort of moral code or standard. What I
contend though is that even then there’s no certainty that such a code or
standard will be looked kindly upon by
history. Even surface-level integrity is despicable if used towards
a terrible end.
Leaders have responsibility and
influence, and it is the choice of
leaders how to wield it. A transformational leader can reach into the hopes of
followers and tap into the best of
people, the worst of people,
and everything in between.
Leaders can use their talents to serve the underprivileged and desperate, or
the powerful and entrenched.
So too is this true for followers. We choose who we follow. We choose regardless of how we
define leadership of what qualities we hope for in a leader. Sometimes that
decision is coerced in some way. Leaders can and have tricked followers, have
threatened them, have extorted them. Even then there is still the choice,
though with consequences should someone reject the leader-follower
relationship.
The Problems with Accepting Inherent Morality
in Leaders
I also like the definition of
leadership as a relationship because it hits upon my biggest issue with
how most leadership is taught. We keep the darker potential for
leadership at arms-length. We struggle to cope with historical figures like
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Charles Manson. We confuse the fact that we as individuals reject them as leaders, that we do not
accept that relationship personally, with whether they were leaders at all. They were. Others
did accept that relationship. Thus, they led. It's disheartening, it's
troubling, it's hard to swallow. We should push past the discomfort though.
I see two major issues with this
confusion, with not accepting that true leaders can be morally bankrupt. The
first is that we underestimate
their potential. When we claim someone is not a “real” leader, we don’t take
the threat of a bigot, a psychopath, a fanatic serious enough. If they are not
a real leader, surely others won’t follow them, surely they won’t hold the same
degree of influence that far better men and women have held, right?
The second, and to me more damaging,
issue with believing that leaders are inherently moral, is that when an immoral
leader comes to prominence, we wrongly assume they are
moral. We assume that a leader elected is right and just because the people
chose them. We assume that the head of a company is the best for the job
because they are the one who got the position. We fail to look at our leaders
with a critical eye,
and either miss, ignore, or refuse to
believe in their faults.
The Point of all this Generality
I understand my post this time has
been much more broad. Rather than try to really narrow things down, offer
specific suggestions and solutions, I’ve suggested that there is none. I’ve
tried to encourage the idea that leadership is much more than we often like to believe. Sometimes it’s better to
leave things ambiguous, as it
allows for greater flexibility.
If we can accept multiple definitions of leadership, if we are open to the idea
that even if we don’t follow a certain leader but others genuinely do, I think
it prepares us to meet the realities of our world better. It keeps us from
taking leadership for granted.
***
ACTION!
Consider a leader that you admire,
that you perhaps not agree fully with, but mostly. Take a more critical eye and
consider their faults, their moral shortcomings, their weaknesses. Consider
ways you could challenge those parts of a leader without completely rejecting
all they stand for. It’s easy to see the immorality of leaders that we
personally don’t follow, but it’s harder to do so with those we wish to get
behind.
***
What’s Next?
Still holding off on the current job
search being done and settled before reflecting on both the struggles and
privileges of the experience, how the two are not exclusive of each other.
Depending on the job I get I may have to take away any partisanship or heavy
political matters to adhere to the policies of the organization, in which case
I’ll definitely shift over to more informative topics such as what public works
or community development department is, and why they matter in our lives.
