The Amorality of Leadership

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.