Ethics are the moral standards that govern the behavior of people in different situations. Ethics looks at the systematic analysis of the wrong and right conducts. The moral principles that guide people in making day-to-day choices are covered in ethical studies. The three major schools of ethics are virtue ethics, deontological, and consequentialist methods of looking at ethics. People grapple with the question of what is the best way to live a healthy life. One way that is proposed is to exercise, others insist on discipline spiritually, while others say that it is through proper nutrition. However, when harmonized together, people can be able to live a healthy life. The same applies to ethics, as there are various ways that people use to make choices in life. The choice of which ethical process is good and justifiable has raised a lot of debates in the past. Therefore, the best way to uniformity in understanding ethics is through the unification of the various ideologies.
Leadership ethics provides the rules that govern leaders as they undertake their actions. Leaders are people in power positions whose choices could have consequences on the lives of a lot of individuals. Therefore, it is vital to provide guidelines that enable leaders to act ethically. Additionally, leaders are usually people in the public domain, and they act as role models to top other people. How leaders carry out themselves serves as a reflection of how the society that they come from is. Leaders must be provided with the right framework for them to thrive. However, the question of just how exactly a leader is supposed to act has raised a lot of debate in the past and even at the present time. This paper shall dissect the ideal way for leaders to act employing ethical leadership theories, the core values of an ethical leader, and when the actions of leaders who break the law could be justifiable.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Leaders are normally under immense pressure. Being public figures puts a lot of pressure on leaders to deliver. At times, leaders end up suffering from the immense pressure put on them while others thrive under pressure. The question of how leaders should behave to display ethical behavior has continued to elicit a lot of reactions and even emotions among the various players. Various ethical leadership theories have been fronted to try and explain ethical leadership. One such theory that I think is the most informative is the deontological ethics theory. Is it right? That is the question that a leader has to ask themselves severally before making decisions. Now the important part is how to define what is right. 1 According to the deontological approach, what makes and a decision right is the aspects that action and not the consequences. Reason is the underlying principle of the deontological school of thought. However, the reasons must be coherent and also consistent. The deontological principle also urges leaders to respect the autonomy of others while at the same time they should have a duty to other individuals based on ethical principles.
The deontological school of thought for ethical leadership was advanced by Immanuel Kant. Kant thought that people should act in ways that would be universally acceptable 2 . Rather than thinking of the consequences of their actions, the leaders must base their decisions on what they thought would become a universal law. Kant provided the best basis for ethical leadership. Leadership is not about the leader or the people that they lead but about making sustainable choices 3 . The ideal situation would be that leaders acted in ways that promoted others to act in the ways that they did. Therefore, the deontological perspective provides a huge basis for the promotion of ethical leadership. Ethical leadership should not be based on acting in ways that we expect other people to act towards us, but actions should rather be based on ways that leaders want other people to towards other people as well. The deontological perspective does not cover all aspects of ethical leadership, but provides a huge basis for the achievement of ethical leadership.
A good example is when a leader contemplates about lying to be able to achieve the results that they want. For the leader to think about lying, the larger assumption is that human beings are honest people and also expect other people to be honest. Therefore, the thought of lying is only conceptualized as a result of the huge benefits that honesty has created among a majority of the people. The leader makes an exemption of themselves and does what other people will refrain from doing. The same applies to broken promises 4 . Leaders use broken promises as a way to advance their plans. However, breaking promises is only possible because a lot of people keep their promises. Therefore, the argument is that leadership, and ethics should rely on ideals that most people are likely to respond to. The actions of leaders should not be based on what they expect others to do, but also in ways that other people would act towards other people. The deontological perspective provides the best basis for ethical leadership to be instituted.
However, there are other theories of ethical leadership that provide opposing views to Kant’s deontological perspective. One such theory is virtue ethics. Virtue ethics places leadership, ethics on how leaders want to live their lives. Ideally, the theory proposes that leaders must act in ways that reflect ethical virtues. Personal development of leaders towards achieving their ideal personalities is the main driver. In virtue ethics, leaders act in ways that bring them closer to their goal and refrain from habits that move them away from their ideal virtues. Integrity is a primary value in virtue ethics. The leader aspires to lean towards a certain set of virtues while avoiding certain vices. The right way for ethical leaders lies in their ability to find the right balance between the virtues they ascribe to while avoiding their vices.
The virtue ethics theory was advanced by Aristotle. The virtue ethics and deontological perspective have their differences in explaining the ways that they expect ethical leadership to be achieved. 5 While the deontological perspective vouches for leaders to do what they consider to be universally right, virtue leadership places a lot of emphasis on the individual. The main difference lies in the fact that virtue leadership places a lot of emphasis on the individual leader, while the deontological perspective looks at the overall well-being of the people. The theories differ in their evaluation of what is considered ethical. Virtue leadership is more rigid as its major efforts concentrate on the ability of the leader to follow the guidelines as provided for by their virtues 6 . On the other hand, deontological leadership examines the behavior of other people and bases their argument on actions that would be accepted any other person. Integrity, honesty, and respect are important virtues in virtue; leadership as a leader could aspire to become an honest person. Virtue ethics places a lot of emphasis on the individual as the decision to make moral decisions must come from within the leader. However, the deontological perspective looks and evaluates if the action is right.
The consequentialist ethics was proposed by David Hume. The theory argues that leaders should act in ways that bring the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The theory focuses on the impact that the behaviors of leaders have on the world. The consequentialist theory looks at the end result of the actions rather than the actions itself. The leadership must evaluate the ethical impacts that their choices shall have on the people that they lead. Instead of looking at the reasoning of the actions as in the deontological perspective, the consequentialist perspective analyses the results of the actions. Ethical decisions must be made by leaders in ways that reflect on the results rather than the reasoning behind the actions. If a leader chooses to lie yet, it has positive consequences, and the end result shall justify the means.
Leaders must possess key core values. The core values should be used as the guiding principles for their actions so that they can set a good ethical example, while at the same time move their organizations forward. Respect is a core value that should be envisaged and embraced by leaders if they are to maintain ethical standards. The self-respect of the leader should form the basis for respecting others. A leader who respects themselves will not easily be lured into doing business that goes against their principle of respect. Then autonomous respect for other people must also be demonstrated. Leaders are bound to encounter different people from various backgrounds. Showing respect to people no matter their situation and scenario shows that a leader has truly matured. It is only when the junior employees are treated with respect that they would be motivated to work for the same organization. A good leader should be able to treat others with dignity, respect, and compassion as it only through that way that leaders can move their organizations forward. Respect from leaders should stem from their acceptance that people come from diverse cultures and it is only prudent to show respect as that way people can live harmoniously.
Integrity refers to a personal commitment to one’s moral virtues. In one way or another, integrity ties greatly with the virtue ethical theory. A leader must have a moral code that they adhere to. It is integrity that ensures that leaders do not go about making unethical decisions. From time to time, leaders are faced with immense challenges. At times, the solutions to the challenges facing them could easily be solved by doing unethical things. It is integrity that prevents leaders from taking the shortcut to success but rather following their virtues. By acting with integrity, leaders inspire other people to work hard and achieve their goals in a clean manner.
Humility is being humble and modest. Humility is what separates good leaders from authoritative and arrogant ones. Leaders who lack humility usually enforce themselves too much on the people that could eventually lead to a backlash from the followers. 7 Humility allows for leaders to listen to the opinion of those that are ranked lower than them in the workplace. Through humility, leaders can achieve inclusivity as all the people are brought in, and their opinions heard before a major decision is made. Additionally, humility elicits respect from other people. No one respects people who are arrogant towards them. When a leader places too much trust in their own judgment, they are bound to make mistakes since they will miss out on great ideas from other people. Humility allows for inclusivity while at the same time promotes inclusivity.
Leaders must also act with impartiality. Leaders must never make decisions when they have personal interests in the results. Personal interests usually drive the leader to think of themselves rather than the overall good for the people. The leader must make decisions based on neutrality. It is through impartiality that a leader will ensure that all their followers are allowed to grow. Employees value their own personal growth too. Being able to allow them to grow on a uniform basis will elicit loyalty. Moreover, impartiality enables the making of informed choices. A leader will be in a better position to deliver if they remove personal interests from their decisions. A lot of bad decisions are normally as a result of leaders who are not impartial.
Rule-breaking at times may be justifiable, while most of the time it may not. One way that rule-breaking can be justified is through the consequentialist perspective. The consequentialist perspective provides for ethical decisions to be looked at from the outcome. When leaders can do what is best for the common good of the majority then they will have achieved a justified decision. At times, a leader may feel that their decision is right according to their moral standards, but it breaks the law. So when the leader looks at the decision and sees it as having a positive impact on the people while breaking the rules it could be justifiable. The outcome of the actions would be given a lot of importance compared to the actions itself. Additionally, the circumstances leading to the individual taking the decision would thoroughly be examined.
The reason is one of the best tools to use when making decisions. As Immanuel Kant states in the deontological theory, what makes an act right or wrong are the features of the act and not the end result. Therefore, rule-breaking by leaders cannot be justified by appealing to the effects of the rules on the followers. For example, the choice to lie cannot be justified simply because the lie saved the lives of a lot of people. Reason stipulates that some actions must be avoided at all costs. The duty conferred in people is as a result of the reason. When a person breaks the rules then they are unreasonable in their actions. People must always look to universalize their actions if they are to maintain their ethical standards.
However, rule-breaking could be justified when the actors did their best to consider all the three ethical theories of ethical leadership but still ended up on the wrong side. If the choice was made after enough scrutiny was done to exploit all the reasons, the actor also looked at the consequences of their actions, and lastly even considered their ethical virtues and still ended up on the wrong side. There is no way that one theory could provide basis for ethical decision making in all scenarios. Leaders must learn to practice the three theories in harmony. Human nature is a habitual one. Being habitual beings puts humans in a difficult position in trying to harmonize all the three theories in one. For instance, ethical leaders may lean on virtue theories and forget the deontological theory. People have various strengths and weaknesses. Human beings tend to lean towards things that favor them over others that show their weaknesses. Therefore, being in a position to work with the three theories at the same time could be a huge challenge.
I believe that rule-breaking would be justifiable in scenarios where individuals tried to use the best of their skills but failed. For instance, when a leader that is humble and acts with integrity and they explore all the means that they know for making informed choices then rules breaking can be justified. Deliberate attempts have to be made by the leader to make the best possible choices to their best capability. As long as the rules are broken were not as a result of personal motivation or ignorance it could be allowed. There must be efforts made to consult with other stakeholders on their opinions. If rules are broken by actions taken collectively in consultation with the best practices, then they could be justified.
In conclusion, ethics deals with the principles that govern the behavior of people. Leadership ethics provide guidelines for people in leadership positions to have a framework for making decisions. The paper discussed deontological theory as the major theory for making ethical decisions. Then deontological theory was compared to consequentialist and virtue theories. Core values such as honesty, integrity, and humility were outlined as the best for leaders. Then justifications were rule-breaking in ethical situations were shown. Going forward, ethical leadership would have to ensure that various perspectives are taken into consideration before choices are made. Globalization has made the workplace hugely diverse, and the more that a leader can embrace and work with various groups of people the more creative and forward-thinking that they shall become. The ethics field has also continued to experience changes that must be incorporated into ethical leadership going forward.
Bibliography
Bai, Xuezhu, & Nicholas Morris. “Leadership and Virtue Ethics.” Public Integrity 16 , no. 2 (2014):173-186. DOI: 10.2753/PIN1099-9922160205
Houston, Paul., & Sokolow Stephen, The Empowering Leader: 12 Core Values to Supercharge Your Leadership Skills Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.
Kickul, Jill and Scott W. Lester. “Broken Promises: Equity Sensitivity as a Moderator Between Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Attitudes and Behavior.” Journal of Business and Psychology 16 no. 2(2001), 2001:191-217
Kimuyu, Patrick , Ethical Leadership in Organizations Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2018.
McManus, Robert., Ward, Stanley., & Perry, Alexander, Ethical Leadership: A Primer Northampton: Edward Elgar Publshing, 2018.
Misselbrook, David. “Duty, Kant, and deontology.” The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 63 , no. 609 (2013): 211. doi:10.3399/bjgp13X665422
Van Wart, Montgomery. “Contemporary Varieties of Ethical Leadership in Organizations.” International Journal of Business Administration, 5 no. 5 (2014): 27-45.
