Introduction
The states, political parties, non-governmental organizations, private companies, and informal groups – all need leaders. Good, or bad, these people take the responsibility for the greater good of their group. Some leaders perceive their groups as supporters, others – as fans, followers, slaves, or other types of mean people. Perhaps this perception is what makes a difference between a good and a bad leader. Remarkably, the scholars do all their best to analyze the topic of ethical leadership from different angles. This paper argues that good leaders differ from bad ones in the morality of their intentions and actions, and that integrity is the most critical moral standard the leaders should hold.
Ethics and Effectiveness
The scholars widely discuss the ethical and unethical attitudes to distinguish between good and bad leadership. Transformational and authentically transformational leadership determines good leaders and draws the line between simply effective and truly ethical leadership. Ciulla starts with the discussion of tyrannical leadership, using the example of Hitler, and ends the conversation with the less arrogant examples like managers who do the right thing but for the wrong reason (92). The scholar says that many people admire unethical but effective leaders, which is why dilemma between the leaders’ actions and intentions deserves particular attention.
The Ancient Greeks did not put the difference between the person, their intentions, and actions, whereas good actions determined the virtuous person and vice versa. However, in later centuries, the utilitarian John Stuart Mill made a difference between the actions and intentions, starting the discussion that led our contemporaries to assess the leader as a person consisting of the inner and outer self. Ciulla solves this dilemma by mentioning that such distinction is still acceptable since leaders who have unethical intentions will never gain the trust of their followers (93). The scholar says “nonetheless, personally unethical leaders who do good things for their constituents are still problematic; even though they provide for the greatest good, their people can never really trust them” (Ciulla 94). This means that a good leader must be well-intentioned and act effectively and to the right ends.
Given the above, the difference between good and bad leaders should be explained in terms of their actions and intentions. Ethical or authentically transformational leaders will adhere to the higher values and standards in their ‘inner’ selves while also establishing ethical business practices, like collecting money for charity. On the contrary, bad business leaders will lack the effectiveness, or make effective but unethical decisions. Another type of bad leader is those who make the right things but have wrong intentions. For instance, the massive charity program may aim to sell more products, not help the needy. Although the consequences of the charity program are good, the action cannot be seen as so, since it causes resistance and dissent among employees.
Ethics as a Culture: Moral Standards
While good and bad can be easily identified in the actions of leaders, assessing organizational culture from such perspective is more difficult. Organizational cultures reflect leaders’ values and closely influence the employees’ mood and job satisfaction. The so-called ‘strong’ corporate culture is critical, especially for employees in central offices when companies have branches in remote regions (Trevino and Nelson 96). A strong corporate culture makes managers from headquarters feel at home if they come to supervise processes in subsidiaries. Just as importantly, senior management obtains a higher level of transparency through the implementation of uniform requirements for the appearance, values, and behavior of employees, regardless of their local cultures.
However, a strong corporate culture is primarily a prize for managers, while employees are forced to adapt and comply with the requirements. This state of affairs recently has been recognized as unhealthy, with the central offices facing independent local cultures. For example, residents of the Philippines, China, and other Eastern countries prefer to keep their initial cultural and values in the workplace. Moreover, middle managers typically see performance improvements when people are allowed to live and work under their local cultural values. Interestingly, Trevino and Nelson rightly point out that weak organizational cultures are good in that they leave room for strong subcultures, giving the example of university campuses (96). Unfortunately, there is a trend that corporate cultures in organizations whose offices are located abroad are more authoritarian than in the US offices.
Corporate cultures impact the types of socialization and determine the employees’ behavior through leadership influence and the requirement to follow a set of rules and regulations. Remarkably, with each generation, the requirements for employees’ behavior change, creating more independent and democratic working cultures. Unfortunately, global companies such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon proved that the declared democratic values can be superficial and far from the actual behavior expectations (Ruzevich 87). It is not uncommon for blatantly unethical work practices such as unpaid overtime, restrictions on freedom of speech, or insurmountable barriers to career advancement to be cloaked in pseudo-democratic values.
Therefore, moral standards in companies should be present not only in the description of the company’s values on its website but be reflected in a responsible, respectful, ethical, and friendly attitude towards employees. The days when migrants worked in sweatshops 16 hours a day to pay rent and save some money to buy food should finally become a thing of the past. Top managers need to change their perspective and stop evaluating employees as a ‘workforce.’ Change is required and urgent; meantime, professional unions and human rights organizations can help protect the employees’ rights.
Good Directors and Behavioral Ethics
Good directors can implement an adequate corporate culture and make effective decisions, inspiring followers with their example. Unfortunately, in reality, such leaders can be observed quite rarely. Of course, there are unique personalities, such as Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, and Richard Branson, but they have achieved their popularity precisely because of exceptional human qualities. Business is an ordinary part of life, and people who have standard human reactions and psychology become top managers.
Scientists analyze the leaders’ behavior, assuming that directors have all human weaknesses. Prentice presents several reasons why good people can do bad things, such as obedience to authority, conformity bias, loss aversion, overconfidence, self-serving bias, moral rationalization, personal positivity bias, confirmation bias, and vulnerability to deception (107). Remarkably, these psychological states can arise under the pressure of corporate culture, hierarchy, or social ties. Moreover, such psychological laws as overconfidence or vulnerability to deception are character traits that have evolved over millennia and have an identity-preserving function. Therefore, the listed emotional-cognitive tendencies are a real challenge for leaders in organizations.
Remarkably, good leaders find ways to avoid falling into these traps. For example, overconfidence can be easily avoided by conducting quarterly assessments of ability and professionalism, and the tendency to trust people declines sharply after the first disappointments. Most leaders clearly understand the danger of conformity bias, for which the term ‘information bubble.’ has recently been coined. In other words, good leaders demonstrate common sense and critically evaluate their strategic and tactical decisions without counting on excuses. On the contrary, bad leaders consciously or semi-consciously will appeal to the fact that they are only people, and people are prone to make mistakes. The tendency to justify personal mistakes is another problem that contributes to unethical behaviors.
Good directors usually have normal moral values and feel responsible for their actions. Inflated ethical expectations can be a problem, as they seriously demotivate any initiative. Despite this, persistence is the hallmark of successful and effective employees, and it also determines good leaders. Another problem implied but not mentioned by scholars is the loneliness and remoteness of top managers. Being practically devoid of external control, they may experience difficulties in forming an adequate assessment of their actions. The lack of feedback can be a key factor that reduces the leaders’ effectiveness. Companies, where leaders have two or three partners with equal rights, are more effective than those where leaders act alone (Sundermeier et al. 1037). Most start-ups are created by a group of leaders who give each other moral support and feedback on each other’s decisions and actions. Such feedback can include both praise and criticism and is always helpful.
The passion for power is another problem, and it is more difficult to solve than the problem of isolation since the lust for power is an active mental state. Many leadership teams break up because someone demands more rights and privileges, and often the more aggressive team members get what they want (Sundermeier et al. 1037). In theory, the board of directors exists to counterbalance the power of top managers, but in practice, leaders are successful in hiding unethical practices until they become public. Control by employees, such as anonymous surveys, can help avoid the problem of unethical leader behavior, especially when it comes to managing large enterprises or corporations. A more active board of directors and greater career opportunities also help, as leaders feel being overseen and under control.
Unfortunately, in companies where the top manager is the founder and ideological inspirer of the company, such as Facebook, they will have almost ultimate power over all decisions made by the company, from corporate culture to unethical practices concerning the state, society, and local communities. For such leaders, public opinion can be some counterbalance, but a series of lawsuits against Facebook and Amazon leaders have proven that even official bodies can do little to control the activities of such leaders.
Conclusion
Thus, the difference between good and bad leaders was explained, and the types of moral standards the leaders should hold were determined. Regardless of their level of control and oversight, leaders must exemplify ethical behavior and inspire their followers with perseverance and integrity. Good leaders succeed by pursuing ethical goals and performing ethical actions. On the contrary, bad leaders may use a wide arsenal of unethical practices to achieve goals, and these goals will usually be limited to the desire for profit growth, disregarding the price paid. Equally important, moral standards must be reflected in the corporate culture and not be sacrificed for efficiency.
Works Cited
Ciulla, Joanne B. “Ethics and Effectiveness: The Nature of Good Leadership.” Ethical Theory and Business, 10th ed., edited by Denis Arnold, Tom Beauchamp, and Norman Bowie, Cambridge University Press, 2020, pp. 92-94.
Prentice, Robert A. “Good Directors and Bad Behavior.” Ethical Theory and Business, 10th ed., edited by Denis Arnold, Tom Beauchamp, and Norman Bowie, Cambridge University Press, 2020, pp. 106-111.
Ruzevich, Emily. “Friend or Foe: Amazon and the Role It Plays in the Fight against Copyright Infringement of Books.” UIC Intellectual Property, vol. 20, no. 1, 2020, pp. 87-88.
Sundermeier, Janina, Martin Gersch, and Jörg Freiling. “Hubristic Start‐Up Founders – the Neglected Bright and Inevitable Dark Manifestations of Hubristic Leadership in New Venture Creation Processes.” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 57, no. 5, 2020, pp. 1037-1067.
Trevino, Linda, and Katherine Nelson. “Ethics as Organizational Culture.” Ethical Theory and Business, 10th ed., edited by Denis Arnold, Tom Beauchamp, and Norman Bowie, Cambridge University Press, 2020, pp. 95-105.