A Fundamental Leadership Question (Part 3)

A Conundrum

In the first two blogs of this series, we have left unresolved the question of whether there is such a thing as a “moral qualification” for leadership.  While I may like to think ethical leaders are more effective than unethical, the historical record is, at best, ambiguous. For every Marcus Aurelius or George Washington we might find, there is a Chairman Mao or Ivan the Terrible who also led multitudes and accomplished a great deal.  

Indeed, most leaders, whether contemporary or from antiquity, are a mixed bag.  Few are devoid of all virtue, no matter how bad. And few are uniformly good. Indeed, if we are to believe the Bible, “all have sinned.”  So is our discussion concluded?  Must we agree that the effectiveness of a leader has nothing to do with ethics or integrity?

Aiming Straight

Perhaps the answer to our question depends on how we define the aims of leadership.

I think we might agree that a good leader is one who shepherds the community through changes that result in the betterment of the group.  But we hit a snag when we try to define “betterment.” Such a term implies a set of values related to the “good life.” It also raises the question at what level of human experience and thought betterment occurs.

For some, betterment involves increasing material wealth.  Or perhaps it could imply greater safety and security. It may be is as simple as providing “bread and circuses” to keep the populace happy.

It seems to me, much of the conscious intent of leaders focuses on such superficial improvements.  I don’t mean to trivialize them. Most of a leader’s work involves solving daily problems and driving improvements that make physical life more comfortable.  There is much to be said for the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham in which he quantifies those things that cause human happiness and indicates that leaders have a responsibility to maximize happiness by maximizing those things that cause happiness.  Thus, if promoting bingo results in more overall happiness than promoting poetry readings, leaders should invest in bingo.

But despite the prima facie attractiveness of the utilitarian values framework of Bentham and others, perhaps the “most happiness for the most people” may not be a satisfactory approach to goal setting.  Short term happiness may not be the most fulfilling factor in human life.

The Creator’s Intent

Those of us who believe in an intelligent and loving Creator come at the conundrum of the constituent elements of “betterment” by asking the questions, “What did the Creator have in mind when He created us?”  After all, He must have had some ideas as to why we were created and what would make us thrive.

If indeed there was intent behind the origin of our species and the world in which we live, effective leaders would be those who move things into greater alignment with that intent.  At a minimum, the ends toward which a leader aims ought to reflect the original design. While many would not agree with the proposition that there is a Creator, for those who do, the link between leadership and design should be obvious.  Just as the optimal use and care of a lawnmower is generally dictated by the designers, so the optimal use and care of our fellow travelers in this world is best specified by the one who engineered it.

A New Paradigm

Going back to our original leadership question, if there is an intent behind us and our world, is there a case that can be made that leadership must be morally qualified?  This new wrinkle takes us beyond purely pragmatic considerations. To ask only the question, “what works?,” is to ignore the question of original purpose and to substitute only an arbitrary, self-referential purpose of the leader’s own choosing.  But to embrace a rational Creator is to escape the solipsism of the purely pragmatic leader and to take on a new definition of leadership. Sure, goal accomplishment is still important to the leader. But ends and means are likely going to be affected.

Within this new paradigm, to find an answer to the question of whether morals are important to leaders, we must address at least three questions.  (1) How can we know the original intent? (2) Is it only ultimate goals that matter or do methods used to achieve the goals matter? And (3) in the messy and complex world in which leaders must operate, is some utopian vision of leadership workable?  In the next few blogs, I hope to try to unpack these questions.