Price
Leadership Ethics
Commonality Between Hero and Villain Leaders
- Break the rules to achieve goals
- ex) for excessive power, luxury, the goal of the group or society
Pitfalls of using examples of heroes or villains to rationalize a leader’s behavior
- Villain: attention goes from more common ethical fails in leadership to villainous leadership
- Hero: begin to model behavior and use it to rationalize rule-breaking
Justification: had before the action
- External
Rationalization: find a reason after the fact
- Internal
Leaders often have some justification for breaking rules
- Leaders function on their own norms
- Resources are at the leader's disposal
- The goals of the group are important
Leaders are in a better position to justify rule-breaking behavior because they are in a higher position of power
- They think of themselves as above their followers
Normative Differentiating: the set of moral rules for leaders is different from that of their followers
Moral conflicts and dilemmas can arise with leaders when it comes to achieving the group's goals
- Leader’s morals are different than the group’s goals
- Could slow down or prevent the group from reaching its goal
- ex) sacrificing the group’s long-term well-being for the leader's short-term gain
Examples of how leadership is a power-conferring and how it can lead to moral dilemmas and rule-breaking
- Leaders breaking the regulations to earn more money
2 Justifications for Leader’s Rule-Breaking
- Consent: broke the rules because they had the consent of the group or higher-ups
- Necessity: breaking the rules was necessary to reach the group’s goals
2 Ways to Look at Leaders Breaking Rules to Serve the Group’s Interest
- Partial: expected to put the goals of the group, organization, or society above their own
- Impartial: can have justifications for rule-breaking when it serves society at large or the common good
Moral Relativism: what’s right or wrong differs from person to person or from society-to-society
- Allows leaders to act as they see fit or as necessary
- 2 Types
- Personal: privileges the moral belief of the individual
- Cultural: yields to the moral commitments within a society
Leadership Ethics
Commonality Between Hero and Villain Leaders
- Break the rules to achieve goals
- ex) for excessive power, luxury, the goal of the group or society
Pitfalls of using examples of heroes or villains to rationalize a leader’s behavior
- Villain: attention goes from more common ethical fails in leadership to villainous leadership
- Hero: begin to model behavior and use it to rationalize rule-breaking
Justification: had before the action
- External
Rationalization: find a reason after the fact
- Internal
Leaders often have some justification for breaking rules
- Leaders function on their own norms
- Resources are at the leader's disposal
- The goals of the group are important
Leaders are in a better position to justify rule-breaking behavior because they are in a higher position of power
- They think of themselves as above their followers
Normative Differentiating: the set of moral rules for leaders is different from that of their followers
Moral conflicts and dilemmas can arise with leaders when it comes to achieving the group's goals
- Leader’s morals are different than the group’s goals
- Could slow down or prevent the group from reaching its goal
- ex) sacrificing the group’s long-term well-being for the leader's short-term gain
Examples of how leadership is a power-conferring and how it can lead to moral dilemmas and rule-breaking
- Leaders breaking the regulations to earn more money
2 Justifications for Leader’s Rule-Breaking
- Consent: broke the rules because they had the consent of the group or higher-ups
- Necessity: breaking the rules was necessary to reach the group’s goals
2 Ways to Look at Leaders Breaking Rules to Serve the Group’s Interest
- Partial: expected to put the goals of the group, organization, or society above their own
- Impartial: can have justifications for rule-breaking when it serves society at large or the common good
Moral Relativism: what’s right or wrong differs from person to person or from society-to-society
- Allows leaders to act as they see fit or as necessary
- 2 Types
- Personal: privileges the moral belief of the individual
- Cultural: yields to the moral commitments within a society
