Page 192 - leadership-experience-2008

CikguOnline
CikguOnline
CHAPTER 6: COURAGE AND MORAL LEADERSHIP 173
Conventional level
are to not steal, cheat, make false promises, or violate regulatory laws, a person Conventional level
the level of personal moral
at the conventional level will attempt to obey. They adhere to the norms of the the level of personal moral
development in which people
development in which people

larger social system. However, if the social system says it is okay to inflate bills to learn to conform to the
learn to conform to the
the government or make achieving the bottom line more important than integrity, expectations of good behavior
expectations of good behavior
as defi ned by colleagues, family,
people at the conventional level will usually go along with that norm also. Often, as defi ned by colleagues, family ,
friends, and society
friends, and society
when organizations do something illegal, many managers and employees are sim-
ply going along with the system. 30
At the post-conventional or principled level, leaders are guided by an inter- Principled level
Principled level
the level of personal moral
nalized set of principles universally recognized as right or wrong. People at this the level of personal moral
development in which leaders
level may even disobey rules or laws that violate these principles. These internal- development in which leaders
are guided by an internalized
are guided by an internalized
ized values become more important than the expectations of other people in the set of principles universally
set of principles universally
recognized as right or wrong
organization or community. A leader at this level is visionary, empowering, and recognized as right or wrong
committed to serving others and a higher cause.
Most adults operate at level two of moral development, and some have not
advanced beyond level one. Only about 20 percent of American adults reach
the third, post-conventional level of moral development, although most of us
have thecapacity to do so. People at level three are able to act in an indepen-
dent, ethical manner regardless of expectations from others inside or outside
the organization, and despite the risk to their own reputation or safety. The U.S.
media has reported acts of post-conventional moral courage occurring during
the war in Iraq, such as the January 2007 ABC News report of 19-year-old Ross
McGuinness, who went against his training and jumped into a tank to absorb the
impact of a grenade, losing his own life but saving four fellow soldiers.
Impartially applying universal standards to resolve moral confl icts balances
self-interest with a concern for others and for the common good. Research has
consistently found a direct relationship between higher levels of moral develop-
ment and more ethical behavior on the job, including less cheating, a tendency
toward helpfulness to others, and the reporting of unethical or illegal acts, known
31
as whistleblowing. Leaders can use an understanding of these stages to enhance
their own and followers’ moral development and to initiate ethics training pro-
grams to move people to higher levels of moral reasoning. When leaders operate
at level three of moral development, they focus on higher principles and encourage
others to think for themselves and expand their understanding of moral issues.

Servant Leadership

What is a leader’s moral responsibility toward followers? Is it to limit and control
them to meet the needs of the organization? Is it to pay them a fair wage? Or is it to
enable them to grow and create and expand themselves as human beings?
Much of the thinking about leadership today implies that moral leadership
encourages change toward turning followers into leaders, thereby developing
their potential rather than using a leadership position to control or limit people.
The ultimate expression of this leadership approach is called servant leadership,
which can best be understood by comparing it to other approaches. Exhibit 6.5
illustrates a continuum of leadership thinking and practice. Traditional organiza-
tions were based on the idea that the leader is in charge of subordinates and the
success of the organization depends on leader control over followers. In the fi rst
stage, subordinates are passive—not expected to think for themselves but simply
to do as they are told. Stage two in the continuum involves subordinates more ac-
tively in their own work. Stage three is stewardship, which represents a signifi cant
shift in mindset by moving responsibility and authority from leaders to followers.