Business ethics and ethical conduct are the centerpieces of a properly functioning system, where leaders follow the core principles and value them. The given paper will discuss the prevalence of unethical practices in a world of business, where an ever-increasing number of successful leaders fail to adhere to key ethical principles. In addition, they usually originate from high ethical beginnings, which can be partly claimed to be the main reason for their rise to such levels. The phenomenon is called the Bathsheba Syndrome, which is based on the popular story of David and Bathsheba. The main premise of the stated paradigm is the notion of success being the primary facilitator of self-destructive and unethical behavior rather than competitive pressure and lack of operational principles.
The story of David and Bathsheba is among the most well-known stories of a rise to power and success with subsequent downfall due to immoral actions. The conventional interpretation of ethical violations is based on the proposition of two main assumptions, which are the lack of operational principles and competitive pressure. In the case of the former, the premise is manifested in the fact that managers and leaders do not simply adhere to or establish core guiding operational directives, which are designed to set boundaries between ethical and unethical. The lack of the specified approach leads to the notion of non-adherence, where leaders fail to operate within the realm of ethicality, and thus, leading to violations. Another assumption revolves around the idea of competitive pressure, where a high level of competition forces a leader or manager to act in an unethical way in order to be able to compete with stronger and more dominant rivals. In other words, some measures of gaining competitive advantage might be perceived as more plausible and effective as well as unethical, and therefore, the formerly assumed benefits outweigh the latter negative element. In other words, a leader’s decision-making process will be shifted towards considering the violating option as a valid one.
However, it is important to point out that the given assumptions do not fully explain the prevalence of fraudulence and misconduct among highly successful leaders. These individuals usually possess a high level of competitive advantage prior to their unethical activities, and they also start out as well-intended and ethical people. It is highly common to learn about leaders, who violated ethical principles, and realize that they ethical and strived for moral high ground early in their careers and lives (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). In other words, the missing piece of the puzzle can be considered as success itself, which leads to a series of decision-making changes, which make unethical practices more appealing and less consequential. The Bathsheba Syndrome explains how David, similar to many leaders, failed to handle success in a rational and weighed manner, which resulted in his downfall due to corruption and deception (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). Bathsheba signified the first unethical act and key catalyzer of the failure, which results in a cascading process of continuous violations.
Therefore, success is the primary driving factor of this widespread problem in the domain of business ethics. It is stated that many leaders are poorly prepared to properly deal with and handle success, where the first reason is the fact that: “success often allows managers to become complacent and to lose focus, diverting attention to things other than the management of their business” (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993, p. 1). In other words, successful managers or leaders fail to recognize their primary duty because success brings more attention from surrounding distractive elements. For example, a person at the height of his or her success might be frequently contacted by press and news outlets, which distracts them from the very thing that brought them to this position. It means that there is an evident loss of strategic focus, where neglect of key strategy, strategic complacency, delegation without supervision, and org on autopilot occur (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). Such an unfocused approach can be the initiator of the downward spiral process.
Moreover, it is important to note that success also brings additional perks to an individual. One of such elements is privileged access, where one can have better or improved reach for objects, people, and information (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). For example, a successful leader can have many benefits of being in such a state, where he or she gains influence, latitude, recognition, status, and position (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). In other words, this person has more ways and opportunities to act in an unethical fashion with a more perceived likelihood of being able to get away with it. Therefore, the decision-making of this person shifts towards favoring violating the essential principles, whereas an individual without these perks might be more reluctant to do so due to more perceived strict boundaries.
Additionally, it is critical to understand that success usually becomes highly intertwined with more unrestrained control. It is especially true in regards to organizational resources, where a successful leader is more capable of conducting unethical acts due to higher resource availability. This notion, in conjunction with the previous one, can significantly impact the overall decision-making process of a successful leader because he or she possesses more opportunities and more resources to act in an unethical way. The judgment becomes clouded and unclear, where the rewards appear enlarged and risk perceived as minimized.
Lastly, success can also directly impact the decision-making process in a peculiar way. The given notion is manifested in the idea of inflated belief in one’s ability to manipulate outcomes (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). This means that a successful leader overestimates his or her capabilities of determining the general outcome of his or her actions, where the clarity of decision-making becomes diminished. Such leaders might think that they can “trick the system” and alter the possible outcomes in a way that would benefit them, whereas risk would be either eliminated or reduced. It can also be the result of increased self-confidence in one’s competence because people are not inclined to attribute their success to mere luck, where deliberate efforts are thought to be the sole reason for their successful state.
In conclusion, the Bathsheba Syndrome is a phenomenon derived from the story of David and Bathsheba, where the main premise is based on success being the key risk factor of unethical business conduct. Although conventional theories put the blame on competitiveness and lack of operational principles, they fail to explain the prevalence of unethicality among successful leaders, who have the competitive advantage and adhered to the principles early-on in their lives. The main catalyzer of a downfall of such a leader is success itself, which provides privileged access, unrestrained control, perceived ability to manipulate outcomes, and loss of strategic focus.
Reference
Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba Syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 265-273.