Introduction
The debate on effective and ethical leadership is as old as leadership itself. Usually, the difference between the two crucial aspects is neither sharp nor blunt. Is an effective leader ethical? Or better still, is an ethical leader, effective? Can a leader be effective without being ethical and can an ethical leader fail the test of effectiveness? The understanding of these questions will serve to demonstrate the difference that exists between them, if any, and also determine if they are all components of a good leader.
In this paper, I shall seek to provide answers to the above questions by way of answering hypothetical questions with the sole aim of bringing out the difference that there is and indicate whether the two elements are a sine qua non for good leadership. In this respect, I shall illustrate using real life situations and a consequent examination of whether such actions of a leader meet the two tests of leadership. It is the contention in this paper that a good leader, in the strict sense of the word, need be both effective and ethical. More so, in this paper I shall delve into the two ethical theories-deontological and the teleological perspectives on leadership in a bid to understand this vexing question. In conclusion, I shall seek to explore if there is any relationship between effectiveness and ethics as far as leadership is concerned.
Effectiveness and ethics
It is difficult to discuss these two aspects without making mention of what they mean. In definition, effectiveness refers to the ability to deliver, influence followers to attain certain goals of an organization.
Ethics on the other hand are the moral principles that guide human action. In a business context, it refers to the moral principles that should guide the way a business behaves. It is the correctness of a decision based on rational judgments. It therefore follows that ethical leadership demands a leader who seeks to do what is morally acceptable, the rigors of his job notwithstanding. An ethical leader has an obligation to consider moral principles in the conduct of his affairs as he steers whatever people.
Equally important is the definition of leadership. This definition becomes even the more important as we attempt to answer the questions posed in this paper. However, there is no consensus on what leadership is, especially amongst scholars. An examination of the different definitions as elicited by scholars will be illuminating. Leadership has been defined as the ability to persuade or influence people in a particular direction towards achieving a certain goal. Other scholars have made this interesting definition: managers are the people who do things right while leaders are those who do the right things. An interesting feature is introduced by this definition-that of ethics in leadership. The mere mention of doing the right things essentially means that ethics are an important facet of leadership. To the subscribers of this school of thought, leadership and ethics are inseparable. There cannot be leadership without ethics. However, this is not the case with other former definition. By citing leadership as the ability to influence or persuade people into following a particular cause, it does not take into its fold whether such influence is obtained ethically or not.
Which brings us to the question: Was the renowned Bernard Madoff a leader? That Madoff was able to make billions of shillings over a long time is incontrovertible. What remains is the issue, whether by virtue of his actions, he fits within the definition of a leader. On one hand, he is a leader in the proper sense of the word in the same class with other modest business leaders. Yet, to those who give leadership a definition with moral undertones, Madoff was no more than a swindler or head of the infamous Ponzi scheme that defrauded people of their hard earned savings. It is these differences in the concept of leadership that make this classification difficult. Another interesting example is the September 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Alan S.Weil operated a law firm occupying five floors of the skyscraper. Following the attack and as rescuers worked their hearts out to save those caught in the crossfire, Mr.Weil immediately acquired four floors of another building within three hours for his business. It would appear that he probably was moved to act with speed to avoid losing on the business that he would otherwise have lost. With this, he was able to secure the livelihood of his employees and deliver to his clients. Nonetheless, his actions could be cited as unethical and smacking of possible avarice. What is not in doubt is the fact they were largely unethical. Would such persons be regarded as effective leaders? Yes. From this analysis, it appears that an unethical leader can be an effective leader in the sense that he can influence people if we are to ignore the distinction in definitions. What is not certain though is whether such a person is a leader. An illustration of this point is a fast foods business selling junk food and reaping huge returns. The product of the business-junk food is harmful to the health of its consumers or customers. However, it so happens that the restaurant employs thousands of workers who would otherwise be jobless. In addition, the business pays school fees to the poor students in the area as well as running a foundation that pays hospital fees for the indigent. What can be said of its leader? Is the business leader effective? Certainly he is. On the other hand, he could be said to be unethical by continuing to sell food that impacts negatively on its consumers. In one sense, he will be said to be effective in getting the job done, yet he is unethical.
It is also important to note that some leaders are highly ethical but ineffective. Take the case of Swiss charity Christian Solidarity International. It acted ethically to rescue thousands of children in Sudan from slavery by paying $35 per head for every child freed. However, this ended up creating a market for enslaving more children so as to accrue more money in form of payment and consequently increased enslavement. The ethical practice failed to be effective in stemming the vice. This raises the question of what should be examined in such situations: the intentions of the action or the end result? It follows that an ethical leader is not necessary effective.
Seeing that effectiveness and ethics are separable, we examine whether there is a relationship between ethical and effective leadership. It is the case that ethics and effective leadership function as a cause and effect relationship. Ethics produce effectiveness in leadership though the converse is not necessarily the case. This is because ethics produce characteristics essential for effective leadership. Before a leader assumes such responsibility, it must be accorded by the follower. Followers are in most cases going to accord it to the people they trust-those that are ethical. Ethical traits such as integrity, honesty, care for the disadvantaged among others will build on the trust in them by the followers. Although it may be contended that effective leadership is more important than trust, it must be realized that for effective leadership there must be followers. And the followers can only be won through trust inspired by ethics. This confirms that there exists a relationship between ethics and effectiveness in leadership. Both are complementary.
Deontological and Teleological Theories
These theories draw similarities with the ethics and effectiveness concept. From the deontological perspective, ethics of an action are determined by the moral intent of the leader and the moral justification of such action. In this instance, as long as the leader acts with due regard to moral principles, it is deemed ethical the consequences notwithstanding. This view was advocated for by Immanuel Kant who argued that ethics or lack thereof should be based on the moral intentions and not contingent on outcomes.
On the other hand, from a teleological point of view, the end result of an action of a leader determines whether the leader is ethical or not. It focuses on the end result. However, it is important to consider both theories in determining whether the leader is ethical.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we can conclude that ethics in business as well as in any other form of leadership is necessary for effectiveness. Nonetheless, the same effectiveness may be achieved without being ethical. However such “leadership” should not be extolled. The two elements are necessary for good leadership. There cannot be good leadership without ethics-regard for moral values. Ethics and effectiveness in leadership are related and both contribute to exemplary leadership.
References
Ciulla, J. B. (2011). Ethics and Leadership Effectiveness. In J. Antonakis , & D. V. Day, The Nature of Leadership (pp. 302-327). New York: SAGE.
DesJardins, J. (2010). An Introduction to Business Ethics. New York City: McGraw Hill Education.
Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. (2007). Ethical Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill International.
