Good Leadership: Effectiveness versus Ethics

So one of my students says “Hitler was a good leader”. The whole class freezes, looking profoundly uncomfortable, especially the German exchange student. But no one says anything.  (I was waiting for the fight to break out).

Why the profound discomfort with this statement? While I can’t support this with research, I think it has something to do with an unstated assumption in the West that leadership is “good”.  So therefore the act of leadership is automatically morally or ethically “good”. So therefore Hitler could not possibly be a good leader.

To consider this idea further, let’s take a look at one definition of leadership (my definition, so it is far from perfect, but it will do as a start):

The relationship between a leader and her followers, whereby the leader influences followers to work together to successfully create and achieve a vision, purpose or objective.

Note that this definition says nothing about the ethics of this vision, purpose or objective. Historically, political leaders essentially ignored ethics in the pursuit of power. (See Machiavelli for further instruction). It is only recently, and largely limited to the developed world, where we have decided to tack on “authenticity” or some sense of moral behaviour to leadership.

My student very astutely pointed out that Hitler, while morally repugnant, did indeed successfully create a vision and influence his followers to achieve that vision (at least for a time). You may question his tactics and the morality of his objectives, but he was an effective leader, measured by the above definition of leadership.

Which brings me to my point. While a leader may be effective in creating and achieving a vision through her followers, this does not necessarily mean that the vision/objective/purpose is necessarily “good”. Even if a leader can influence thousands or millions of followers, it does not mean that the end objective is “good” from an ethical stand point.  Effective leaders are not always ethical leaders.

So let’s ditch the idea of “good” leadership. Instead lets talk about “effective” leadership and “ethical” leadership.  Effective leadership is about the creation,  process and achievement of vision. Ethical leadership is about whether or not the vision or objective is morally good for the whole of society.  Effective leadership is about the “hows”, while Ethical leadership is about the “outcomes” of leadership. Obviously these two aspects of leadership are tightly intertwined.

When evaluating leadership we need to consider both effectiveness and ethics. And we need to stop assuming that leadership, in and of itself, is good.

Open Leadership: You Might Be Wrong

Open leadership is the next great thing. Charlene Yi, in the Winter 2012 issue of Rotman Magazine defines open leadership as:

…having the confidence and humility to give up the need to be in control, while inspiring commitment from people to accomplish goals. (p. 22)

Which is all well and good. I’ve posted a lot in this blog about the concept of humility in leadership and our need to develop more humility in our approach to leadership.

That said, there are some limitations to the current discussion of humility. First, our preconceived ideas (or implicit theories) of leaders rarely include the idea of humility. In fact we expect our leaders to be highly confident, to not flip-flop, to have firm notions of the way the world works.  Humility is not often the road to power, influence and leadership roles. So most leaders don’t have a lot of practice in humility.

Second, humility is one of those traits that we all think we possess. Everyone says, “humble? of course I’m humble”. Most of us too, do not think of ourselves as arrogant or narcissistic, even when we are.

So it is all well and fine to preach humility, but in the end, most people ignore the lecture. Why? If you already think you are humble, a discussion of humility feels a bit irrelevant, non? (Which I suppose is an expression of arrogance in itself, “I’m already humble, so I have nothing to learn about humility”).

As a result, we know very little about humility. Although some preliminary research suggests that it might be an important factor in leadership, it is not clear at all what it is, in what circumstances it is effective, where it is ineffective, how to use it, and how to develop it.

Don’t get me wrong.  I firmly believe that humility is an important factor in leadership. Used properly, I believe that it builds leader credibility. Used improperly it can destroy follower trust.

But bland prescriptions to “be humble” really don’t help leaders and followers to be effective. How often do you ask yourself, could I be wrong here? How often do you admit your fallibility to your followers? friends? family? There’s a great quote from the movie the Blind Side:

Leigh Ann Tuohy: (to her husband)  “You’re right”

Sean Tuohy: “Excuse me? ‘You’re right’? How’d those words taste coming out of your mouth?”

Leigh Ann Tuohy: “Like vinegar”.

I’d like to believe that humility needs to be like wine and honey, not like vinegar. Now all I need to do is learn how to be humble.

Leadership and Action: Elizabeth 1

We associate effective leadership (and followership) with action. The leader identifies and issue or opportunity and takes action. When we hire, there is evidence that someone perceived to be “agentive” (those who take action) is more likely to be considered than someone who is “socio-emotional” (or people oriented).

But sometimes taking action can have negative results. The other day I was chatting with one of my favourite history professors. She teaches a wonderful course on Elizabethan history. And Lizzie was an amazing leader. She led her country through war, poverty and the social upheaval of the reformation successfully. England became more prosperous and peaceful than ever in its history during her reign. It also built the foundations of what would become the British empire during her reign.

Poor old Lizzie was often accused of dithering, of being uncertain and unwilling to take action. This was attributed to her inherent weakness as a woman. But she was really playing for time and playing various competing courtiers against each other. She kept various groups competing against each other by taking no action. This meant that they could not collaborate to challenge her rule because they were too busy infighting.  Often, these problems resolved themselves or went away completely as a result of her stalling tactics. If she had acted, there was greater risk and uncertainty than if she stalled.

Sometimes the best leadership action is taking no action. Our society feels profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of a leader taking no action.  Every business case I’ve ever taught asks What should she/he do?  Perhaps cases should ask What should he/she not do? Are there items on your to do list where taking action might be the wrong thing to do?

Confusing Leadership and Role Models

Who is a leader? That question has become very loaded today. It has become politically incorrect to say that someone isn’t a leader, or doesn’t have leadership potential. The democratization of leadership has led to beliefs that anyone can be a leader.

The other night I was at a networking group (our group name is “The Profitable Broads”, which should tell you something about our membership), when a discussion about leadership began. One of the members said, “well, we’re all leaders here”.  It turns out that I was the only person at the table of that felt that she wasn’t a leader.

To which my friends all immediately replied, of course you are a leader. You teach young women. You lead in the classroom every day.  I still don’t buy it. And don’t assume that I am expressing false humility.  What my friends did was mistake role modelling for leadership.  I suggest that I am a role model in the front of the classroom. I teach, I coach and I encourage.  But leadership is more than teaching, coaching and encouraging. Leadership is about articulating a vision for an organization or group of people and influencing them in a positive way to achieve that vision together.  I’m just doing my job, not leading anyone.

And that is okay. I certainly commit acts of leadership occasionally, including educational and strategic leadership. But am I a leader? Certainly I can be a leader if I’m called. And I choose to be a leader in certain situations where I have a passion. But I believe that I’m an effective follower most of the time. I’m also a role model for my students. I try to model effective, productive workplace behaviour. But let’s face it, while good followers are not around in massive numbers, there are still a lot of good followers. It’s not particularly unique or special to be a good follower.

So, the idea of leader, that was once something that very few aspired to, is now assigned to everyone. I think that I can have more impact on our organization as an effective employee, whether taking the role as leader or follower. But no matter what role I’m undertaking, I want to a good role model.