ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP
By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
College of Mount St. Joseph
INTRODUCTION
Although human beings and other primates are individual biological
organisms, they have the capacity to organize collectively in pursuit of common
goals. What we all call “organizations” are actually sociopolitical systems that
involve the interaction of “leaders” and “followers” in the pursuit of these goals.
This lecture will explore some of the philosophical and ethical issues that arise in
the context of organizational leadership.
ORGANIZATIONAL INQUIRY
Human inquiry is about asking questions and proposing answers.
One of the stumble blocks inherent to organizational inquiry is the fact that
various the various questioning disciplines that constitute human inquiry
(philosophy, economics, political science, psychology, sociology etc.) have
developed their own distinctive conceptual frameworks and vocabulary. As we
explore what these various disciplines have to say about organizations, we
invariably encounter a wide assortment of synonymous, overlapping and
contradictory terms, such as: organizations, social groups, social systems,
communities, associations, and institutions. Unfortunately, nuanced meanings
make it difficult to navigate across disciplines.
It is also important to acknowledge that human beings spawn many
different types of organizations in pursuit of the vast array of human interests,
including: political organizations, business organizations, professional
organizations, religious organizations, medical organizations, athletic
organizations, news organizations etc. Despite this variability, the literature on
leadership tends to focus on political and business organizations.
Inquiry into the nature of organizations and organizational behavior can be
very general and ask timeless and/or universal questions about all organizations
or it can be time-specific and/or particular kinds of organizations, such as
political, business, or religious organizations. Therefore, inquiry into
organizational behavior raises a morass of questions, some of which are
longstanding in the history of inquiry, while others emerge and dissolve at a
specific time and place.
There are two traditional lines of human inquiry relevant to the study of
organizations: descriptive inquiry and prescriptive inquiry. But keep in mind that,
as is often the case, the distinction itself is subject human inquiry and not as clearcut as we would like. Descriptive inquiry into the nature of organizations
generally entails the empirical analysis of the “real world” of organized human
behavior; that is, the attributes of leaders and followers and the social
relationships that exist within and between organizations.
So the long-term goal of descriptive inquiry, therefore, is to discover the
objective universal laws of nature, which in turn, enable scientists to explain,
predict, and ultimately control organizational behavior. Hence, descriptive
analysis is committed to the discernment of Truth and Falsity, with questions such
as: How do human leaders and followers compare with leaders and followers
from other species, especially other primates? Who are the leaders and followers
of an organization? What are their respective psychological and/or character
traits? How are leaders and followers identified? Are leaders born (e.g.
charismatic leaders) or can leadership be transmitted via teaching and learning?
What are the organizational ends that leaders pursue? By what means do leaders
aspire to attain those ends, and, how efficiently are those ends attained? How do
leaders go about maintaining the status quo or instituting changes in the ends or
the means? Who bears the costs and who enjoys the benefits of these
organizational decisions? To what degree do followers compete and/or cooperate
with leaders and/or each other? To what degree do these organizations compete
and/or cooperate with other organizations in their environment?
Traditionally, descriptive inquiry relies on empirical methodology
employed by social scientists; usually psychologists, sociologists, political
scientists, economists, and/or historians. In recent years, evolutionary biologists
have also begun to contribute to that body of theoretical knowledge.
One of the most basic questions raised by descriptive inquiry into the
nature of organizations is whether there exists a single, overarching set of natural
laws that govern the behavior of all organizational leaders and followers? Or, are
the laws of nature contingent upon the pursued end? In short, are the laws of
nature generically and/or contextually variable? For example, are the laws
governing political organizations commensurable or incommensurable with
business organizations? We might also question whether historical knowledge of
leadership within a particular organization at a specific time and place elucidates
the present situation for that organization, or whether that knowledge transfers
over to other organizations or not. Does the history of political organizations
elucidate knowledge business past or present business organizations? What do
you think? Are the laws of nature that govern political organizations and business
organizations commensurable or incommensurable?
Traditionally, descriptive inquiry is conducted by biologists social
scientists that study human nature, and prescriptive inquiry is conducted by
theologians, and philosophers; however, today social scientists and biologists now
contribute more to organizational ethics.
PRESCRIPTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL INQUIRY
Prescriptive inquiry into organizational leadership deals with questions of
value; or, the discernment of Good from Bad organizations, leaders, or followers.
In contrast to descriptive analysis, which seeks to discover the immutable “laws
of nature,” prescriptive analysis involves questions of value and usually (but not
always) entail identifying the moral rules, character traits (virtues), etc. that
shape normative organizational behavior.
Here one of the most puzzling problems is that all organizations utilize a
variety of rules intended to govern the moral relationships between organizational
leaders, followers, and other organizations in their social and physical
environment. Most organizational rules are pragmatic rules that are intended to
serve the realization of organizational goals. These rules can be judged solely in
terms of efficiency. Thus, the most vexing problem facing organizational inquiry
what to do when there is a conflict between efficiency (that is, ”getting it done”)
and morality (how your affect persons). What happens when “getting the job
done” seems to entail widely held moral rules or principles? Call it the “problem
of dirty hands.” Indeed, one of the oldest distinctions in the history of prescriptive
inquiry is Plato’s distinction between intrinsic goods (things that are “good for
their own sake”) and extrinsic goods (things that are good for their pleasurable
consequences). Much of the history of philosophy has been occupied offering
alternative categorizations.
In philosophy, there are several longstanding competing moral theories.
Divine Command Theories hold that moral rules are justified based on the
authoritative “Word of God,” Teleological Theories state that moral rules are
justified based on their consequences (usually pleasurable); Deontological
Theories (or rights-based theories) state that moral rules are justified based on
universality; and Virtue-Based Theories state that moral rules are justified based
on their proximity to standards of human excellence, such as courage, trust, etc.
Most philosophers embrace the view that prescriptive morality must
address universal questions that pertain to the good and bad treatment of persons.
This entails not only inquiry into the nature of the moral theories, but also inquiry
into human nature, and the composition of the moral universe. In ethics, the
distinction between persons and non-persons is of central importance. Persons are
entities that occupy the moral universe that can be reasonably assigned rights,
duties, and/or obligations.
. In the Western moral tradition, most personhood theories have been
anthropocentric theories that say that the moral universe is exclusively composed
of human beings. It was often argued that only human “persons” possess intrinsic
value, and therefore humans are “good for their own sake.” “Non-persons” or
non-human entities such as, such as non-living things, property, plants, and
animals were thought to possess only extrinsic value via their relationship to
human beings. However, since the 1970s a very robust philosophical tradition
emerged out of the “animal rights movement” and “right to movement die”
identifies moral personhood with the possession of certain descriptive attributes
associated with brain function such as: consciousness, sentience, self-awareness,
and/or intelligence.
If descriptive inquiry seeks knowledge of the universal laws of nature,
prescriptive inquiry seeks knowledge of moral rules. Traditionally, prescriptive
organizational inquiry asks questions such as: Who ought to be rulers and who
ought to be followers? What constitutes a good leader or a bad leader? What ends
ought to be sought by good leaders and what means ought to be employed in
attaining those goals? And, whose interests ought to be served by the
organization?
Today, there is also a lot of debate among scholars over the exact values
that leaders and followers ought to embrace or exemplify. Some of them include:
efficiency, integrity, honesty, courage, equality, liberty, justice, trust, reverence,
temperance, happiness, and prudence.
Another issue commonly encountered in applied ethics is the role of that
“good” or “bad” intentions play in assessing moral responsibility of organizations,
leaders and/or followers. Indeed, many leaders intend to do good things, but are
actually ignorant of either what is good, or how to attain it. What can we say
about well-meaning but inept leaders and/or followers, or well-meaning but inept
organizations?
In sum, organizational inquiry must address the larger philosophical
question of the relationship between that descriptive “is” and the prescriptive
“ought.” Are there universal moral rules that apply to governmental, business, and
religious organizations? If so, can this moral structure be discovered and/or
justified based on descriptive analysis (Science)? If there is a conflict between the
descriptive and prescriptive organizational structure, how is that conflict to be
resolved? Are organizations persons and if so, what are their moral rights and
moral obligations within the larger moral universe? Ultimately, inquiry into
organizational behavior must address the philosophically challenging relationship
between the morality and legality.
LEGALITY AND MORALITY
Metaphorically speaking, the Laws of Nature are coercively enforced by
“Mother Nature.” However, we must guard against our natural propensity to mix
metaphors. There is no conceptual absurdity associated with human beings
violating the “Laws of the State” or the “Laws of Morality.” Unfortunately we do
it all the time. However, it is not clear what it means when we claim that human
beings “violate the Laws of Nature.” Is it physically possible for human beings to
violate the universal laws of gravity, thermodynamics, economics, or evolution?
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, human beings can violate the laws of nature by
virtue of their divine origination via the doctrine of special creation. In the
Western Liberal, and even Western Scientific traditions, human beings act outside
of Nature, via their possession of free will. But when we violate those laws of
nature, so the argument goes, Mother Nature imposes “natural consequences”
upon us.
For ethical leadership, one of the most important aspects of Human Nature
is that human beings organize themselves into groups based on leadership and
followership. Indeed, other primates exhibit similar organizational patterns.
Unlike the “Laws of Nature,” the “Laws of the State” and the “Rules of
Morality” imply enforcement by human beings. The Laws of the State are
enforced by the coercive power of government. Hence, if human beings violate
these laws, government imposes legal sanctions, usually in the form of physical
and/or economic penalties. The rules of morality are enforced by a public
sanction, usually in the form of assessment of praise or blame. In totalitarian
states, the Laws of Morality are often enforced by legal sanctions, while liberal
states attempt to minimize the government’s ability to dictate morality via the
criminal code.
There is also a strong tradition in Western Liberalism that supports the
view that Mother Nature enforces both the descriptive and prescriptive
dimensions of human experience. Realist philosophers argue that organizational
ethics is conditioned by Nature, and that idealistic prescriptions that violate
human nature are invariably weeded out by Mother Nature herself, whether we
like it or not. In other words, as Kant observed moral prescriptions must
ultimately conform to the dictates of reality: “ought implies can.” Much of what is
presented in leadership ethics runs against the grain of Human Nature, and
therefore may violate the “ought implies can” proviso. Hence, we cannot do ethics
without reliable empirical knowledge.
ORGANIZATIONAL ENDS AND MEANS
As teleological systems, all organizations aspire to fulfill certain desired
ends, goals, or purposes. Teleological organizational behavior can generate
enormous complexity. Some organizational goals are simple, and clearly
identified (make money), while others are complex, not easily identified (save
souls). Some ends are simple and relatively easy to attain while others are more
complex difficult to attain, depending on efficiency of the means employed and
the level of competition by other organizations in the environment. Some
organizational ends are universally regarded as good while others are bad.
Organizations often pursue multiple goals. And of course, not everything that an
organization does is planned, and therefore wrought with “unintended
consequences.” Sometimes unintended consequences are efficient or good and
sometimes they are inefficient or bad.
In general we tend to classify organizations based on their goals. It is
widely believed that the primary goal of a business organization is to earn a profit
and the primary goal of a religious organization is to worship God. Political
organizations fulfill multiple purposes which often conflict. These goals include:
providing protection from hostile nations in the environment, providing economic
security for leaders and/or followers (citizens), and/or protecting private property.
Theocratic regimes also worship God. However, it is important to acknowledge
that governmental organizations are constrained by the natural laws of economics,
and therefore governments can, at least in theory, “go out of business.”
One of the universal descriptive features of organizational behavior is the
degree of cooperation and competition between leaders and followers, and the
distinction between voluntary and involuntary cooperation. Cooperation between
leaders and followers involves compliance with rules and the degree of freedom
to enter or exit the organization. All organizations employ varying degrees of
coercive force (and threats of force) for both rule compliance and organizational
entry and exit. Hence, some organizations are based on voluntary association,
whereby individuals freely choose to be followers and voluntarily comply with
organizational rules. All voluntary associations include embrace freedom of exit.
Although, membership in the Roman Catholic Church is (more or less) voluntary
in terms of entry and exit, your continued association with the church requires
adherence to certain rules that govern your behavior. Failure to comply with its
most fundamental rules can result in a variety of sanctions imposed by church
leaders, including forced exit or excommunication.
ORGANIZATIONAL PLANNING
Are there objective universal laws of nature that govern the behavior of
leaders and followers engaged in organizational behavior? In other words, is the
behavior of political organizations, business organizations, and religious
organizations determined by the same Laws of Nature? And if so, would human
knowledge of these laws facilitate the explanation, prediction and control of all
organizations? Unlike most other ethicists, I think that in the “real world,” all
organizations are essentially political organizations, and therefore, the natural
laws that govern, what I shall call “sociopolitical reality” are objective, universal,
evolutionary, and explicable in biological terms.
Human beings and other primates are distinctive in that they purposefully
plan for the future, both individually and collectively. Power is inexorably
teleological and therefore subject to analysis in terms of means and ends. The
“Ends” of human endeavor are simply the objects of short-term and/or long-term
planning (“Goods”) as pursued by individuals and organizations. Planning is
central to the realization of both individual goals and organizational goals.
Individual planning involves the pursuit of individual goals and collective
planning is planning by organizations. Of course, self-interested individual
planning often conflicts with collective planning, which raises serious moral
issues concerning the nature and limits of an organization’s use of coercive power
over individuals in the exercise of its collective planning. When there are conflicts
between individual and organizations, communitarian regimes tend to maximize
collective planning and liberal regimes tend to maximize individual planning.
Planning usually involves rules, which form the basis of cooperation
between leaders and followers. Individual and collective planning entail the
formulation, replication, and enforcement of rules. Rules are the bulwark of
planning and serve as the primary instruments for the exercise of power. Whoever
makes and enforces the rules holds political power. So sovereignty is about who
makes the rules, how those rules are enforced, and who follows those rules.
Efficient rules embedded in organizational structure are well known, easily
enforced. It is much easier to enforce organizational rules when both leaders and
followers benefit from those rules. Inefficient rules that do not advance
organizational goals and/or not benefit leaders and followers are more difficult to
enforce and make cooperation difficult attain.
There is a lot to be said about planning. Organizational planning entails
purposive planning for the realization of organizational goals. Organizations are
complex evolutionary systems that change over time, which means that
organizational leaders and followers also change over time, as do organizational
goals and organizational plans. But leaders and followers do not always
cooperate. They often compete. Leaders compete with aspiring leaders as they
jockey for positions in the organizational hierarchy. Leaders also compete with
individual followers and groups of followers. And of course, organizations
invariably compete for survival with other organizations in their environment.
ORGANIZATIONAL IDEALISM AND REALISM
In the ideal world, all organizations pursue praiseworthy short-term and
long-term goals with maximum efficiency. Leaders and followers cooperate and
sacrifice their individual self-interest without leaders having to resort to the threat
of coercive force. In this other world, there is no competition between leaders,
followers, or between various organizations. All organizations cooperate with one
another in the execution of each other’s organizational planning. Everyone
benefits and no one pays the cost. In the ideal world, all organizations survive
forever and everyone is successful and happy. I call this organizational idealism.
In contrast to the rosy dictates of idealism, organizational realism offers a very
different scenario.
As Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and other realists have suggested,
political organizations (or States) are subject to the natural laws that govern the
exercise of power. These laws are objective, universal, and ultimately inviolable.
Failure to comply with these natural laws invariably results in the natural
dissolution of the State, or indeed any organization. Political power is simply the
objective capacity of individuals and/or groups to pursue self-interest in a
sociopolitical context. Therefore, I shall argue that organizational reality is
invariably contingent upon relationships of power between individual leaders and
followers engaged in organizational structures that serve various ends or
purposes. In competitive environments, organizations that fail to take into account
sociopolitical reality lose the struggle for survival.
First of all, human beings are by nature individual self-interested
biological entities programmed to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore,
human beings are naturally attracted to pleasurable rewards and repelled by
painful punishments. Human beings, however, are also social animals capable of
organizing themselves in groups in order to advance those interests. The most
puzzling aspect of the control of human behavior is how to “organize” selfinterested individuals into functionally cooperative organizations.
As Machiavelli noted, in the “Real World” many followers are not really
dedicated followers, but rather self-interested individuals that, if given the
opportunity, will accept those rewards while surreptitiously violating the rules.
And of course, not all leaders are, in fact, altruistically committed to
organizational goals. Some leaders use their power as leaders to advance their
own individual interests, often at the expense of the collective interests of their
organizations. As noted earlier, other leaders are well-meaning and committed to
organizational goals, but lack technical knowledge necessary to efficiently
manage human and non-human organizational resources. And finally, some
leaders are efficient leaders but pursue immoral goals and/or immoral means.
Sometimes immoral leadership “pays off” in terms of organizational efficiency
and sometimes it does not. Hence, the distinction between leaders and managers is
often subject to debate.
Organizations in the “Real World” and therefore must take into account
the darker side of human nature. As Machiavelli noted, organizations that attempt
to survive by offering rewards to leaders and followers in exchange for
compliance with rules, eventually run out of resources, as leaders and followers
naturally seek higher and higher levels of gratification. Conversely, organizations
that rely exclusively on coercive threats also tend to be short-lived. That’s
because the ability of leaders to threaten followers is limited by their finite ability
to detect communicate the rules, force compliance with those rules, by the ability
of followers to either avoid getting caught or by their ability to endure the painful
sanctions imposed by leaders, and by the “followers” ability to exit the
organization. If over the long run all of the leaders and followers choose to exit
the organization, then organization must either reorganize via collective planning
or suffer from extinction.
Leaders can also exercise coercive power over followers through the
strategic manipulation of information, by convincing followers that compliance
with rules advances their self-interest, which, incidentally, may or may-not be
true. Thus all organizations an ideology; that is they cultivate a body of
descriptive and prescriptive beliefs that serve to justify their rules.
The more collective planning the less room there is for individual planning
and the less variation and novelty introduced into the organization. When the
environment is stable and the organization is surviving on the basis of upholding
tradition and by replicating the old effective rules, innovation or rule changes are
destructive. (If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!) When the environment is unstable, and
the organization begins to disorganize, innovation or new rules are essential to
survival. Of course, inefficient rules can survive, at least temporarily, through the
use of coercion. Over the long run, however, organizational rules, like organisms,
survive on the basis of trial and error. But Mother Nature punishes biological and
organizational inefficiency. Unfortunately, she often seems to be much more
tolerant of immorality than inefficiency.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS INDUSTRY
Finally, the most invisible fact of the study of organizational ethics is that
it is also an industry. Companies develop and market products and services that
offer insight and/or advice on how to form and maintain an ethical organizations.
There are companies that produce books, videos, and websites. There are
consultants that get paid to provide lectures, seminars, and other programs to
promote ethical leadership and/or followership. Colleges and universities charge
tuition to students that want to learn about ethical leadership and so do the
professors that teach these courses. Believe it or not, I’m getting paid a nominal
stipend to teach this course.