A Fundamental Leadership Question (Part 4)

A Matter of Goals

I left the discussion of whether or not good leaders must be “morally qualified” making a case that it depended on the goals of good leadership.  Because leadership is a social venture, it makes sense to me that some benefit must accrue to those being led. I don’t think most of us would accept leadership that only benefits the leader and undermines the well-being of followers.  People may be duped into following someone who is only in it for themselves and whose actions actually harm followers.  But I would say such outlandish selfishness would be universally condemned once uncovered. Unbridled selfishness to the detriment of followers would thus, in the end, destroy leadership.

Is Playing Favorites OK?

Proper goals for leadership, therefore, must benefit a wider populace in some way in order to be sustained.  Perhaps the leader might be somewhat self-serving.  However, ultimately there must be at least some concern for the wider group being led.  But can the leader prioritize one group over others? Clearly, most leaders do. Almost no leader focuses on all people. They lead a particular group of people and generally seek the good of that group.  Even though the President of the United States may have global influence, he (or someday she) puts the interests of one nation ahead of all others.

For the most part, leaders are not faulted for such preferential treatment.  There does not seem to be a moral conflict when a leader seeks the best for those led over against outsiders.  No one criticizes Pericles for wanting the best for Athens or Augustus for wanting the best for Rome. Nor is Churchill faulted for defending the British Isles.  Yet treating those led preferentially can create moral problems that call into question the effectiveness of the leader.

Moral Challenges

An obvious example of such a moral challenge arises with respect to how a non-privileged group is treated.  Can a leader be “effective” and actively work toward the detriment of those outside the group being led? (E.g. a leader who calls for the subjugation, enslavement, or extermination of another race, religious group, or ethnic group; or a crime “godfather” who seeks to enrich the “family” by any means possible.) Leaving aside moral creeds and simply looking at pragmatics, leaders who show little regard for those outside the privileged group and who prey upon them, inevitably create enemies.  Over time, those enemies may find ways to fight back and bring retribution. Ultimately, those in the preferred group may suffer harm as a result of such leadership.

It is pretty clear to most of us when presented with extreme examples that leaders who only seek (1) entirely selfish ends that harm followers or (2) ends that harm individuals not in some “privileged” group, don’t fit the ideal of a good leader.  So leaders who actively pursue both courses (selfish or groupish) in ways that do actual harm to the well-being of “the other” can be said to be morally unqualified. Narcissistic sociopaths and racists need not apply for the job.

Avoiding Subtle Harm

However, there may be other more subtle ways in which leaders may actually harm the group they lead.  These ways revolve around how the leader views “the good life” and the means taken to secure that good life for those who follow.  Often leaders target goals that enhance physical or financial well-being for their privileged group. While there is nothing wrong with health and wealth, to suppose that human wellness subsists only in such things is to ignore the almost universal lesson of history, philosophy, psychology, and religion.  

Not By Bread Alone

When Jesus famously quoted Deuteronomy 8:3, he was challenging a common idea of the good life.  The tempter approached him with options to entice him to abandon his central purpose. Satan offered Jesus food, miraculous health, protection, wealth, and power.  Yet Jesus’ immediate response was, “Man shall not live by bread alone.” Of course we all need bread, health, and security for survival. But the essence of the good life lies elsewhere.  

Feeding on “every word that comes from the mouth of God” sums up Jesus’ understanding of how humans thrive.  If nothing else, to feed on the words of God implies acknowledgement of His sovereignty. To live fully requires that one’s life be congruent with the order of the universe, established by God and reflecting His own values and nature.  

If we accept Jesus’ understanding of the good life, to truly seek the good of followers, human leaders must understand God’s ultimate leadership and must seek to conform both ends and means to the eternal Sovereign’s will.  Thus, the moral qualification of the good leader is submission to God.

The ideal of the leader depicted in the Hebrew scriptures is a man or woman who combines justice, righteousness, mercy, and steadfast loyalty.  These are the characteristics of the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. And it is only through the practical outworking of these virtues that true life and well-being can be found for any people group.  For a leader to pursue ends and means that are less than these, is a recipe for disaster for the people being led — perhaps not immediately, but in the long run.