Ethics... everyone seems to think they're important, but no one seems to agree on "where to draw the line."
Over the course of the last week we've had opportunity to observe the arrest and arraignment of Dominique Strauss-Kahn - the now former head of the International Monetary Fund - on charges of sexual assault. As MacLean's magazine discussed Friday at http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/20/an-open-secret/ Strauss-Kahn's "predilections" have been know for some time. Notwithstanding the present accusation against him, should his moral character have had an impact on his rise to leadership of one of the most important financial organizations on the planet? Should a leader's "private life" have anything to do with his or her leadership?
Wow, this is a loaded one. I personally don't feel that a person's private life should affect their rise to leadership. However I would feel this way if their morality was the only thing that was in question. This case however has now taken on a criminal element in which now does call his leadership into question. One has to wonder if the power that he held led to the crime that he stands accused of. I would also wonder if someone that impulsive and self indulging (if he's found guilty) in their actions could be capable of leading with a cool approach. Most saw Bill Clinton as a good leader outside of his indiscretions. His choices, although against most peoples morals, did not seem to affect his rise in popularity. People still want to hear what he has to say even now.
ReplyDeleteWell, first, let’s assume he is guilty. He has, after all, been arraigned for a crime at this point but not convicted (it really doesn’t look good for him though).
ReplyDeleteI think when you read the McLean’s article or any newspaper story about Strauss-Kahn, one of the most interesting facts is the protection of the privacy of citizens in France. In fact, the French have enacted laws in the recent past, strengthening the separation of ones private life from ones public life, and it is seen as distasteful to them for a private life to be open to scrutiny by the press and the public. Clearly, there is a cultural factor at work here that the West does not understand nor agree with. In any case, if we assume that Strauss-Kahn has committed the crime, it does give pause to ask where the line might be drawn for the rich and powerful.
This incident with Strauss-Kahn speaks to the character of the individual. Clearly he feels that he can take whatever he wants. We have seen this scenario played out before with Bill Clinton, Kenneth Lay from Enron, and the many CEO’s during the recent financial collapse who were sacking their companies through huge salaries and bonus payments.
To answer the question, yes, I do think that a leader’s private life has something to do with their leadership. The two cannot be separate. I like what the text says in Chapter 5, that “leaders who do not behave ethically, do not demonstrate true leadership.” I agree with this statement and add that leadership is not just a concept, but a state of being.
Excellent points thus far. Jackie raises an interesting side note - how much of a role should/does culture play in determining what is ethical? If Mr. S-K's (alleged) behaviour been undertaken in a society where such behaviours were deemed tolerable, would that have any bearing on his perceived leadership? Should it?
ReplyDeleteHow can one not think about such events in dealings with their leader? If we look to a leader as a role model then this becomes a whole other problem. I do still believe as a society some lines need to be drawn and some standards have to be adhered to. I acknowledge that culture can play a part in determining people's reactions to some extracurricular indiscretions. Unethical behaviour, however, in a business leader's world I think is seen the same regardless of culture. If for no other reason, the almighty dollar and the risk of losing it would draw attention from shareholders and would need to be dealt with. Being in the financial industry, ethical behaviour is extremely important and any breech of this should not be taken lightly.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, your moral character defines who you are and what type of decisions you are going to make in situations. I certainly believe that his moral character should have impacted his rise to leadership (but hey, that may just be our culture kicking in). But like the article said, S-K's behavior wasn't surprising, so it did not affect his rise- but like Cathy had mentioned, it did become a criminal act, so now his leadership is being questioned.
ReplyDeleteTo talk about whether one's private life should have anything to do with one's leadership, I would say it comes down to morals again. Like I said, your morals define every decision you make; whether publicly or privately.
In our culture, for the most part, we would define his behavior (even before it became a criminal act) to be unethical. But yes, culture determines what a society thinks is ethical/unethical, so to another this may be tolerable- it is almost impossible for us to determine how much of a role it should play because every culture thinks differently and has different morals.
Although every culture believes in different things, an international leader that plays such a critical role in one of the most important financial organizations on the planet should/must come to some common ground to meet expectations of international cultures. Like the text says on page 151: leaders set a moral example to others that becomes the model for an entire group or organization, for good or bad. We would all like to say an international leader set a good example for an entire organization.
I think Heather is right when she says that Strauss-Kahn is an international leader, and therefore leads by the dictates of each nation, rather than the one from which he came. It is hard to believe that Strauss-Kahn, who is very well educated and from a privileged background wouldn’t know that his actions violated the law in the United States.
ReplyDeleteIt does boggle the mind as to why someone of Strauss-Kahn’s stature and position would take such a risk. If we think about this from a western worldview, we would say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn was playing with fire, and his current experience is simply the consequence of his actions. If he was acting in the same way in a society where these behaviours were tolerated, there would be little or no impact to his leadership...he would be doing something that was culturally acceptable.
I think that Strauss-Kahn will be another O.J. Simpson. He has the wealth and the power to discredit witnesses and to hire the best lawyers. It will be interesting to see this one played out.
On a final note, Strauss-Kahn has not been convicted yet. This is what the French are upset about. The press in the west are printing articles and doing news stories as though Strauss-Kahn has already been convicted, where the French would refrain from this, allowing the process to take place out of the public eye. Culturally…quite different for sure.
Benjamin Franklin once wrote: “He that cannot obey cannot command.” I always thought this was true for those who lead by example. For an organization (IMF) which preaches accountability, financial discipline, and fiscal responsibility, their leader was certainly a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a person's private life should factor into whether or not they should be allowed to rise to power (Only if they display tendencies for deviant behaviour). By not factoring these elements into the decision, an organization risks not only their reputation, but also their identity.
The problem is that it is hard to devise a repeatable system to evaluate one’s “personal life”. There exists no empirical measure which can be used to compare one person’s “personal life” against another.
Because prejudice exists, it becomes very easy to mistake a person’s inherent rights for deviant behaviour. Also, because everybody has a unique moral compass, everybody has a different view of what is deviant behaviour and what isn’t? (Ex: Is drinking deviant? Are soft drugs deviant if used recreationally? What if one or both are used as part of religious ceremony? Does that make it justifiable? Etc).
If you are wondering why I am putting “personal life” in quotations, it is because I believe that you no longer have a “personal life” once you choose to lead. In my opinion, leadership is a privilege which requires people to set a good example at all times.
On a side note, I think that it is funny how prophetic the bible really is. Anytime that a scandal such as this one, the Schwarzenegger/ Shriver drama, or the Tiger Woods escapades of 2010, I think of Matthew 10:26-27:
"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops."
A quick word on culture:
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, leaders are expected to go above and beyond what is deemed as “tolerable” by their culture.
Take Major League Baseball for example.
Recently, Derek Lowe, a pitcher for the Atlanta Braves, received a DUI and very little fuss was made in the media. In fact, most avid baseball fans were probably unaware of the event unless they were an Atlanta Braves fan. Why? Because Derek Lowe is a pitcher who is at the tail end of his career and is the 9th best player on his team.
However, Miguel Cabrera is one of the greatest hitters in all of Major League Baseball. He nearly set a record last year by nearly winning the American League Triple Crown by batting in the most runs, the second most homeruns, and the third highest batting average. However, in March of 2010, he was absolutely vilified by the media for a domestic dispute charge in which alcohol was involved.
In the United States and in major league baseball, there (generally) exists no stigma regarding alcohol use. The average American drinks their weight in beer each year, and there exists more than 200,000 baseball and softball leagues in the US. (Very few softball leagues have anti alcohol rules)
At the major league level, players are allowed to drink on the team bus, during flights, and after games. As a right of passage, the highest paid rookie on a major league team is obligated to take the team out for drinks to the most expensive bar in town and pay the whole team’s bar tab.
If alcohol use is not discouraged in the Major Leagues, then why did Cabrera take so much heat? For 3 reasons:
1.) He is the captain (leader) of his baseball team
2.) He is one of the faces of the MLB
3.) He is compensated heavily for his leadership and skill
Miguel Cabrera has been paid millions of dollars by major league baseball and the city of Detroit with the expectation that he will go above and beyond the call of duty both on and off the field.
In my opinion, this is the same expectation that should be placed on all leaders who are making a significant impact on society.
Also, once you become leader of a global organization, you become subject to global standards. In my opinion, this means that the customs that were acceptable in France were no longer relevant when DSK accepted the leadership position.
But, again, that is just my 2 cents!
Tommy
Some great points... so here's a question: should leaders be held to a higher standard than their followers? Or should leaders and followers alike strive to "live uprightly?" Is it reasonable for us to expect better behaviour in our leaders than we would expect in ourselves?
ReplyDeleteIn an organizational setting, leaders should be held to a higher standard, and here’s why: Leaders of an organization set the tone for those that follow. If my leader, for example, left early every day from work, it is likely that the followers would soon begin to do the same. If my leader didn’t fill out their expense reports accurately, and tried to skim a little extra, it wouldn’t be long before other dishonest acts pervaded the organization.
ReplyDeleteIn 1991 legal standards were enacted in the United States that required companies to create or modify their ethics programs. These standards are referred to as the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations and basically provide judges with meaningful ways to prosecute companies for unethical behaviour. These guidelines are having an effect on corporate ethics, and are being adapted in other countries such as Canada.(W. Michael Hoffman, Robert Frederick, and Mark Schwartz, Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, with Free PowerWeb: Philosophy, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2000. pp217-218).
Despite these standards, empirical research shows that “to inspire the necessary culture and philosophy to facilitate ethical business, it takes a leader with four essential character traits:
1. the ability to recognize and articulate the ethics of a problem
2. the personal courage not to rationalize bad ethics
3. an innate respect for others
4. someone who gets personal worth from ethical behaviour
These arguments suggest that a company should adopt ethical behaviour, not only to survive, but to prosper, and the implementation of ethics must start from the top” (Van Der Merwe, R. & Pitt, L. (2003), van der Merwe.pdf. http://reputationinstitute.com/crr/V05/van_der_Merwe.pdf,5(4). Available from: http://reputationinstitute.com/crr/V05/van_der_Merwe.pdf. Accessed: May 28, 2011).
All this to say, that in a corporation, leaders have the most impact on whether or not the entity will act in an ethical way. Followers do have a responsibility to act uprightly as well, and many companies have whistleblower protection for employees who can report unethical behaviour without fear of reprisal.
The conclusion is that for the most part we all know right from wrong, but in an organization it should be the leader that models the good behaviour that would be expected by all followers in the organization.
Leaders and followers should strive to live uprightly alike, however the leader has the power to motivate followers to do so. Like Jackie had mentioned, leaders have the ability to set the tone for followers. So yes, I believe in general, that we should expect better behaviour in our leaders than we would expect for followers. It is up to the leader to inspire his/her followers to embrace ethical/good behaviour and to promote and indulge in an ethical climate. Once an ethical climate has been achieved, leaders and followers alike can strive to 'live uprightly,' that way everyone is set to the same expectations as the leader.
ReplyDeleteI believe that leaders should most defiantly be held on a higher standard that their followers. I think I agree with everyone when I say that leaders are very influential. A Leaders conduct can potentially have influence on the people they are leading whether it is socially acceptable in the culture or not. A leader should be a man or woman with high moral standing. A leaders word should their bond, how else would you be able to rely on what they are communicating. Leaders should be held to a higher standard if not why call them leaders. This obviously doesn't mean that they should be perfect.
ReplyDeleteHebrew 13:7 says “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.”
As for DSK, I agree with Tommy in saying that your personal life is forfeited once you become a leader. Stan Lee, author of the Spider-Man comic wrote in his famous comics "With great power comes great responsibility".
In conclusion it’s an honor to lead a group of people but morality is a strong part of leadership