Abstract
This paper looks into the challenge that a leader faces in making a decision in a multicultural leadership setup. A leader is often faced with moral, ethical or even legal dilemmas in taking their stand. The author gives examples of moral, ethical and legal dilemmas that a leader is likely to face in the workplace. The difficulties include mistreatment of a colleague, racism, freedom of worship, the LGBT issue among others. The author picks the issue of LGBT to demonstrate how a leader can deal with such dilemmas in the workplace by understanding their temperament, strengths, and weaknesses and how to leverage that for effective leadership. The tool for personality test highlighted in the paper is the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. From that, the author demonstrates how a leader with a Guardian (Administrator) temperament coupled with a Rational (Coordinator) temperament can use such disposition to take a stand efficiently and offer direction on the LGBT dilemma.
Keywords: Temperament, dilemma, self-assessment
Often, leaders are faced with dilemmas in which their personal, subjective opinion and stand become necessary. It is not always easy to take a position and defend it when there is open resistance from either one's juniors, equals or seniors in the workplace or any other setup that requires leadership. What an effective leader needs to do is to be aware of the consequences of their stand, taking into account other people's feelings and reactions. In any setup, there are members from diverse cultures, whether religious, behavioural, ideological or political. Balancing the needs of all these people as the leader is not an easy task. It calls for self-awareness on the part of the leader, to understand their strengths and use them for the success of the leadership and identifying their weaknesses and working on improving for the better.
In most cases, no single stand by the leader can take care of all the desires of the members affected by the position. Often there are ethical differences, moral dissatisfaction, and even legal differences. For example, some cultures would consider it unethical to wear revealing clothes whereas others are silent or even allow such. In one society, it would be allowable to have same-sex relationships, but such would be considered morally unacceptable in another. On the same issue of same gender relationships, some states have made it legal, and they recognize such relationships. In other states, it is still illegal. In the modern world, it is not unlikely to have to manage people from diverse backgrounds under the same roof.
Therefore, it becomes a challenge for the leader to strike a mutually acceptable code of conduct and behaviour in such a diverse organization. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to explore the importance of self-awareness of a leader through taking the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. It also delves into how to apply one's inherent qualities coupled with ethical, legal, and moral skills for effective leadership. In the modern work settings, it has become more challenging than ever for a leader, with the biggest challenge being on how to manage diverse culture in a workplace. For example, the issue of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and the Transgender (LGBT) is a sensitive one. Few legislations and especially from the West have recognized the rights of this minority group and have given them legal protection (ILO, 2015).
Notwithstanding, others consider the minority as engaging in an activity that is morally unacceptable, hence raising an ethical question: That is whether it is right or wrong to allow homosexuality. Traditionally this was considered wrong. In the 21st Century, many people do not care about what anyone decides to do with their life. There is still, however, a section of conservatives who feel such should not be allowed. As a leader with such people in an organization, it becomes the leader's role to know what to do for the sake of the organization, the affected individuals, and the other workmates.
In the LGBT issue, the manager is faced with the moral dilemma of whether it is morally right or wrong to allow people of the same gender to have sexual relationships. It is a dilemma because some will be of the opinion that it is wrong. They will give examples from nature that not even two male animals have ever had a sexual relationship (Crawford, 2015). Others will argue that the feeling of homosexuality is not self-devised but comes biologically beyond the control of the victim (Crawford, 2015). Consequently, it will be the leader to take a stand as guided by their conscious, knowledge and wisdom on whether to recognize such relationships or not.
Conversely, the question of ethics on whether to and how to, relate with such people arises. This is where the Code of Ethics, CoE, in an organization comes in handy. When an organization is not faith based, it is wise to include as many diverse morals as possible (Crawford, 2015). This is different when a body relies on shared faith or ideology. Again, an effective leader needs to know what to do to draw a CoE that is acceptable to the group. Above morals and ethics arises the dilemma of legal implications of a leader's stand.
An organization exists by the law (Tamanaha, Sage, and Woolcock, 2012). Therefore, it would, be unwise to take a position that is legally unacceptable. The leader, therefore, needs to strike a balance between the law, morals, and ethics. It is not always an easy point to reach, but through careful consultation, the same is achievable. A leader's temperament and disposition substantially determine their success in acting as a moral agent to take a stand that resolves a situation for a positive outcome.
Leaders with a Rational Temperament are problem solvers, are logical and like improving their competence (Berens, 2008). By being logical, these leaders can apply critical thinking; consider multiple dimensional effects of their stand before making a binding decision. This ability to explore any dilemma facing them broadly makes them efficient in problem solving. These leaders improve their competence by gathering more knowledge through either extensive reading or comprehensive consultation (Berens, 2008). Therefore, I will apply logic and reason on the effects of allowing or not allowing LGBT people into the organization, the effects this would have on them, the organization and the state at large. I would gather adequate knowledge on the subject to improve my competence in offering leadership and direction on the matter in the organization.
In conclusion, it is necessary for a leader to understand their personality, strengths, and weaknesses and try to leverage that for them to be effective as a leader. It is also wise to consider the effect that one's stand as a leader would have on others inside and outside their organization. A single decision could have multiple effects, and that is why it is necessary to make an analysis before formally endorsing a stand as a leader. Striking a moral, ethical and legal balance is good. Above all, a leader ought to be bold enough to defend their stand and take pride it. Being bold and assertive in their decision wins the leader trust from those they lead. This consequently acts to stamp their authority in the organization and everybody can now look up to such a leader for guidance and direction hence the leader can be termed as effective.
References
Berens, L. V. (2008). Understanding yourself and others: An introduction to interaction styles. Huntington Beach, Calif: Telos Publications
Crawford, M. B. (2015). The world beyond your head: On becoming an individual in an age of distraction. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux
International Labour Office. (2015). the promotion of LGBT human rights in the workplace. Geneva: ILO.
Keirsey, D. (2010). Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Memphis, Tennessee: Books LLC
Tamanaha, B. Z., Sage, C. M., & Woolcock, M. J. V. (2012). Legal pluralism and development: Scholars and practitioners in dialogue. New York, NY: Cambridge
