Module 2 Authenticity, Morality, and Leadership
Reflection Blog: Authenticity, Morality, and Leadership
Prompt
In the module reading, Are Authentic Leaders Always Moral? The Role of Machiavellianism in the Relationship Between Authentic Leadership and Morality (EBSCO/Hunt Library), the authors were surprised and concerned that there was not a direct relationship between authentic leadership and moral action. The authors hypothesized that this might explain why some leaders that are adept at moral reasoning still engage in unethical behavior.
Reflect on authenticity, morality, and the leadership style of your leader.
Address the following prompts:
- Is there a gap in moral action in your leader? How does that impact you in the workplace?
- If your leader does not have a gap in moral action, is there a link between moral action and your leader’s leadership style?
- What have you learned from your leader that you implement in your own views of morality and leadership?
Authenticity, Morality, and Leadership
Prompt 1
The concepts of authenticity, morality, and leadership venture into a gray area. A leader who is authentic may not always be moral; an authentic action may not always be justified even if using the "end justifies the means" principle" (i.e., Machiavellianism) (Sendjaya et al., 2016, p. 125). Sendjaya et al. (2016) explore this gap in moral action and links to leadership styles and contend that "Machiavellianism can both cultivate and impede the emergence of leaders' authentic behavior and moral action" (p. 126). Although many leaders exhibit authentic tendencies, some are willing "to employ any means that are necessary to achieve their self-defined ends" out of their own "self-interest" (Sendjaya et al., 2016, p. 125). According to Sendjaya et al. (2016), "someone high in Machiavellianism who seeks control and displays amoral motivation [and] may be willing to go to great lengths to achieve this end" (p. 127). Sendjaya et al. (2016) argue that that the tension and difficulties posed by one's self-interests can impede one's authentic aims for moral behavior (p. 129). The results of the study by Sendjaya et al. (2016) suggest that "Machiavellianism is a moderating variable" that significantly affects the "relationship between moral reasoning and authentic leadership, such that it becomes negative when Machiavellianism is high," vice versa where lower Machiavellianism lends toward moral action (p. 135). From this study, one can interpret that the less self-interested an authentic leader is (i.e., caring more for the needs and interests of others), the more moral they will be. However, self-interest can extend beyond just the self. A leader can have an 'end justifies the means' mindset for their own organization over another.
Leaders, by default, lead by example. Specifically, the highest-ranking leader in an organization will always have the eyes of all of his/her employees, and they will take note of how a leader behaves, acts, and handles different situations. Most individuals perceive leaders as those who can chart the best path forward, and it is up to the leader to act morally or not. Simons (2002) states, "[A] leader's perception of their own authentic leadership plays an important role in mediating the moral reasoning and moral action processes." But a leader will inherently embed their perspective and morality in their own way of doing business because that is what they value and believe in. Unfortunately, leaders may be clouded in their judgment where their actions may be amoral and unethical even if they had the best intention in mind given the end state and goal. Sendjaya et al. (2016) allude to the fact that even though leaders may be authentic and steadfast in their personal morals, it does not automatically mean that their actions are ethical (p. 125).
I am lucky to have a current leader who consistently shows up for his employees and encourages us to lead projects and take initiative within the boundaries of our work centers. But I have encountered leaders in the past who did not bridge the gap between authentic leadership and moral action. One of my previous supervisors failed to conduct himself morally and ethically even though he promised to abide by military core values such as integrity. Pijanowski (2017) discusses moral reasoning and moral action and claims that one should "act according to and promote the professional norms of integrity, fairness, transparency, trust, collaboration, perseverance, learning, and continuous improvement."
My supervisor had a very high level of responsibility, and with that came significant privilege. In his role, he falsified statistics and other information on performance reports for himself and other members in the organization with the intention of having each person look good and stand out among the competition for promotion and awards. He was one of the final signature authorities on the paperwork, so it was easy to impart this act.
In a sense, I believe that he thought he was trying to take care of people and be a helpful supervisor, however, the ethics of these actions are questionable given how egregious they were. Moreover, the benefactors of these actions receive a false sense of accomplishment by being promoted or winning awards over someone else more deserving. He committed these actions to give an advantage to those in his inner circle and, ultimately, he promoted a culture of unethical behavior. Even though he was authentic in his leadership, his high Machiavellianism clouded his moral reasoning and action.
Reflecting on this situation, I learned that good intentions and authentic leadership do not always lead to moral and ethical actions. Often, good intentions are the crux of the problem because people can believe that they are justified in their actions based on the perspective of their own personal moral compass, but be considered amoral when viewed by others externally. Leaders must be reflective and introspective enough to evaluate their behavior according to more widely accepted ethics and morals. Leaders should be open to outside feedback and vulnerable enough to take it in stride and make adjustments where need be. Ultimately, authentic leadership is not enough in what makes a leader good; their actions must be moral and abide by ethical leadership principles, too.
References:
Pijanowski, J. (2017). Teaching Educational Leaders to Move from Moral Reasoning to Moral Action. Education Leadership Review, 18(1), 37-.
Sendjaya, S., Pekerti, A., Härtel, C., Hirst, G., & Butarbutar, I. (2016). Are Authentic Leaders Always Moral? The Role of Machiavellianism in the Relationship Between Authentic Leadership and Morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 125–139. https://doi-org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s10551-014-2351-0
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.
Comments
Post a Comment