Ethical Decision Making

Being a leader involves many things, and one of those ambiguous “things” would be making sure one is ethical. There is some controversy regarding ethicality. Many hold that to be a good leader, or even a leader at all, one must be ethical. That brings up the problem of Hitler. Many would claim he was a leader, a great leader in fact. However, he was not ethical in the least. So, is he considered a leader or no? A problem, I see. To address this issue of making sure a leader is making ethical decisions, Kitchener developed a framework of five principles. These principles are: respecting autonomy (which is not unrestricted freedom, but providing leaders and members freedom of choice), doing no harm (which includes psychological and physical freedom from harm to others , refraining from harming others), benefiting others (which means is the decision good for the whole, growth of the group, and it promotes what is good for the organization and others outside the organization), being just (fairness and equality) and being faithful (which is premised on relationships and trust, keeps promises). These principles can be applied to even the most obscure scenario. For instance, back in high school (I talk about high school a lot, sigh..) I was the president of a club that talked about politics. I made the decision to get us involved in orchestrating a mock election (back when the presidential election was going on, real-time). Looking back, my decision fell in line with the principles. My proposal respected autonomy because no one (club members included) had to participate. It did no harm, it was simply a fun survey. It benefited the club because it spread the word about it, but it also helped the wider school community because it opened their eyes (slightly) to politics (assuming that’s a good thing). It was just because it was a fair, uncorrupt election. And it was faithful , because we promised to release the results, which we did.

Another issue relating to ethical decision making is the case of ethical luck, or moral luck. That is, when a leader makes a decision that is not ethical, but the end result ends up being ethical and beneficial to the wider community and those involved. Here’s an instance in my life (or actually a friend’s life, since I don’t think I’ve ever had moral luck): A friend of mine wanted to bolster her college application, since she did few extra-curricular activities and in general had nothing on her resume to make her stand out when it came to the selection process. An easy, quick way to make herself look better was to do community service. So, she ended up doing lots of community service , with her intentions being entirely selfish and unethical; it was only to look good. But she did a lot to help the community, and they commended her for it.

Inclusivity - Social Justice

So we have been talking a lot about various theories of leadership, theories about groups and followership, and we have even been talking about being inclusive and incorporating another’s culture into a leadership style. What has not been talked about though is privilege and oppression relating to difference. Now, in contemporary American society, I feel there is very little explicit racism, sexism, classism, what have you (at least with those I associate with) but those “isms” still exist. And a lot of how advantage and disadvantage is doled out is not random, but by groups a person identifies or is identified with. Groups that regularly receive advantages are those who identify as white, male and right-handed. Groups that are commonly at a disadvantage are minorities, females, and left-handed people. So the problem rests in classifying people, or favoring certain groups to the exclusion of others. And identity isn’t necessarily self-chosen, but can instead be ascribed. Ascribed identity is how others see you or what society may impose on you (which may or may not be how one sees oneself). I have seen this concept of ascribed identity played out in my own life. For instance, I self-identify as female and an out-doors type. However, I’m also very good at school, but I wouldn’t exactly identify as a particularly studious person or a book-worm. But I had been identified by the people at my high school in that way, whether I agreed with it or not.

Sometimes, being ascribed an identity can place you into a social group membership. Social group membership is being a part of a group in society that receives or does not receive certain benefits; can be privileged or oppressed just by being a member and often cannot change to be or not to be a member. Going back to my book-worm identity crisis, I was given advantages, but also denied them. As an advantage, teachers trusted me far more than they trusted other students. So, I was given lee-way when it came to school work, and I was allowed to work under conditions other students were not. For instance, I was allowed to work on tests by myself, they didn’t need to be proctored. But at the same time, I was disadvantaged in some ways. For instance, everyone assumed that as a “bookworm” I spent every moment of my free time with my nose in a book, or that I was shy, or something. These assumptions about my personality made people act differently toward me, as in if there was a project, I would be automatically assigned the task that didn’t involve speaking in front of class, because as a bookworm, I was shy and therefore wouldn’t really want or be able to speak in class. On the surface they were looking out for me, but it is bothersome that the assumptions that they made about me (not ones I told them) would dictate what I could and could not do. By being labeled in such a way, it denied me certain options. That was a terrible example of privilege and oppression, but it illustrates to a certain degree that being a part of group can be both beneficial and harmful.

Inclusivity - Culture

Inclusivity is an important aspect of leadership. It allows everyone to be a part of the group, to have a voice that would not otherwise be heard. Leadership without the active implementation of inclusivity would leave many feeling isolated, alienated within their group. One reason for this isolation caused by lack of inclusivity is due to culture. In contemporary American society, we function under an individualist banner. That means that everyone is looking out for themselves only, and we promote independence and competitiveness. This isn’t altogether good, or bad. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Collectivism. Collectivism promotes development of the group as opposed to the individual alone. It also promotes shared leadership and trust, as well as a spirit of collaboration. There are many things that make this a mind set to have, but it is not perfect. I have seen watered down versions of both on a small scale in one of my friends. When she was a full blown individualist, she was always trying to dress in ways that made her stand out, that would set her apart. She also wanted to do things (like clubs, activities, etc) to bolster herself up, as opposed to primarily benefitting the community. Individualism in this way sounds very selfish (she wasn’t that selfish, I swear!). However, she recently decided to join a sorority, and so she is in the process of abandoning her unique style in favor of what everyone else is wearing, in order to blend in. And she is interested in the fate of the group (the sorority) as whole. So, in some respects, she now has a collectivist view. One value that should be developed to promote a more multicultural leadership style is the value of “Mi Casa Es Su Casa”. This is the idea of generosity that is lacking from the dominant leadership styles of today in which generosity is almost frowned upon as a weakness. I have seen the power of generosity at work. At my church back home in Gilbert, there was a couple where the husband had been laid off from his job, and they were living off of the wife’s salary (who is a teacher). Needless to say, they were desperately looking for work for him. He searched for months and months to no avail. But many in our church stepped up to help, my mom included. In one instance I was aware of, my mom had called the place where the couple went to get haircuts, and she paid for their next appointment, including all the extras (like highlights, styling, etc.). It is small acts of generosity like that that kept the family afloat in their troubled times, till the husband could find a new job. And it also bound everyone in the church group more deeply together, because we have trust that we will be looked after if things ever go wrong for us, for the collectivist attitude provides security.

Groups

Groups are very important bodies, or structures, of people. A group can get things done; they are an effective force for change and can get much accomplished in comparison to people less connected to each other. And that is where the power of a group comes from, its cohesion. This cohesion has been defined in a variety of ways, but I will focus primarily on cohesion as attraction; individual attraction to the group, and group attraction. Individual attraction is when people in the group are attracted to each other as individuals, as by common interests or friendships. I’ve seen this numerous times in school. If groups for projects are settled by the students themselves, what attracts a student to a particular group is that they have a friend, or friends, in that group. The students are bound together by friendships and necessity, and not necessarily because it’s the best group to be in. The other type of attraction is group attraction. In this case, people in the group are attracted to the group because they have a favorable view of it; they have group pride. This is how it came to be for my soccer team when I was much younger than I am now, originally I was connected to the team by a single friendship, but overtime, I developed group pride. I was proud to be on that team, because we began to work as a seamless whole, and we seemed to do pretty well. Even if we hadn’t, I wouldn’t have switched for a “better” team. Groups are very important, and they go through a series of phases, as outlined in Tuckerman’s Model of Group Development. The first stage is “Forming”, when bad behavior slides because everyone is just getting to know each other. It’s also considered a “honeymoon” stage. In my BlueChip team , this phase lasted a fairly longtime, as we were all awkward with each other since we weren’t finding any common ground. The “Storming” phase is when conflict arises over the bad behavior that was let slide in the Forming Stage; a person’s true personality is shown. We saw this in our team at the very beginning of Field Day, because we all had various levels of commitment to winning, and many were not particularly enthused to be there. This caused us to clash, but not overly so. The next phase is the “Norming” Stage. In this stage, the group falls into routine as differences are ironed out. My team saw this by the end of Field Day, because we finally saw everyone as they really were, and surprisingly enough, we actually liked those versions of ourselves better. And finally, there’s the “Performing” stage. In this stage, the team begins to work in synergy and rhythm, not just routine. We saw this after Field Day, because we were in tune with each other, accepting and more comfortable. We began to truly function as a cohesive “team”.

Vision and Mission

Vision is essential to leadership. It’s the driving force behind a leader. Without a vision for an organization or for his/her group of followers, the leader has no goal, no motivating force that will lead to improvement. Needless to say, having a vision is an extremely important aspect of leadership. What would an organization do with a leader with no vision? It could never grow beyond what it started out as, it would remain stagnant. This is not the goal of organizations, whether they be non-profit or for-profit, the organization must have a leader who can carry it to greater heights. This idea that an organization needs a leader with a vision has been very evident in my life. Growing up back home in Gilbert, I attended a truly lovely little church that had some of the most fantastic leadership I have ever seen. But a couple of years back, our pastor decided to revise his vision for the church to include more outreach, as well as a much more community-based way of running things, because he wasn’t satisfied with the way we all related to each other. He wanted a “doing life together” outlook, the idea being that we should consider ourselves to be part of a family, the church. In a small church of about 50 people or less (as the one I went to was) this type of vision was fairly easy to begin to enact. Anyway, immediately following this new vision for the church, changes started to happen, because this vision changed the behaviors of the leader, because it became a part of his system of values (with the new values being to put the church as family first), and so everything he did started to reflect this new vision. This vision not only altered his very behaviors, but also motivated him to work toward an end. He saw that if his vision was fulfilled, we would be a much closer-knit group then we were before, which far out-weighed the costs of doing things differently and upsetting those that were content with just the status quo. This vision motivated my church leader, but had other effects too. A vision is the basis for the bonds that form between a group and its leader, and in the case of the church vision, this was somewhat accomplished. For those of us who accepted this new vision, we became even more entwined in the workings and doings of the church (which was on goal of the new vision in the first place) but at the same time, some members were upset with this new, altered vision, and so left for other pastures. For them, this vision did not justify changing the organization, and so they left in response.

Toxic Leadership

Models have been drawn up and articles published depicting what good leadership is supposed to look like; what effective leadership is supposed to look like. There have even been leadership models dealing with followers, who are often ignored in the leadership equation. What is even more rarely mentioned though, are the signs of bad leadership, or “Toxic Leadership”. Toxic Leadership isn’t just having a lousy leader who really doesn’t inspire, but still somehow manages to get the job done; Toxic Leadership is harmful to both followers and the organization involved.
In theories on Toxic Leadership, certain attributes that go along with that toxicity have been noted. These attributes range from not horrifically harmful, such as incompetence, to those truly harmful characteristics that would be terrifying to behold in a leader, such as malevolence. I have never encountered malevolence in any of my leaders, and hopefully I never will, but I have most surely come across incompetence! For instance, back in High School, in my Junior English class, we were all divided up into groups at the beginning of the year, and then instructed to work on a research project for the remainder of the semester. My group was composed of fairly competent and hardworking individuals, except for the person who arose as our “leader”. She (I won’t name names) was a decent student overall, and someone I in general liked, but she was incompetent as far as being a leader goes. She was incompetent in the sense that she had the will and the strong personality to be a leader, but she never actually figured out how to go about it. She failed at organizing us, and relied on myself and others to make important group decisions. And she displayed other characteristics of a toxic leader, such as irresponsibility. For instance, she never accepted blame for any mistakes, not even when they were legitimately hers. She would set us off in one direction on this project (it was about internet privacy laws) but when the plan failed, she would never take any blame herself.
Why did we continually look to this girl when we all saw how she failed as a leader? For both Internal-Psychological reasons and for Internal-Pragmatic reasons. Internal-Psychological reasons are such things as the need for an authority figure, someone who gives us direction as someone who supposedly knows best. As a group, we needed a driving force, and the person who stepped up to that role was this girl, and since no one else in the group was relishing the idea of taking on more work, we continued to follow this girl’s lead. Internal-Pragmatic reasons are reasons that fill a physical need, like paying the bills or putting food on the table. As a group, we wanted a good grade, and the best way to get a good grade on this project was to work collaboratively. Although this girl was a terrible leader, she was still the glue that kept us working as a team toward a common goal, as opposed to what we would have done, which is work separately and put all of our work together at the end. And in the end, we did get a good grade, even if it was a struggle to get there.

Followership

Talking about all of these different leadership theories has brought up a lot of (if not exclusive) emphasis on leaders as the most important factors in leadership. Followers are very rarely acknowledged, and if they are, they are assumed to be pretty much the same. This complete lack of acknowledgement is peculiar because a leader is only a leader if he/she has followers! However, new ideas regarding followers are beginning to crop up, that, among other things, state that followers differentiate just as much as leaders do.
According to a new typology describing followers, there are a few categories followers fit into: Isolates (completely devoid of awareness or involvement), Bystanders (aware but not involved), Participants (aware and somewhat involved), Activists (aware and very involved), and Diehards (Utterly aware and involved). I have experienced most of these stages or descriptions at my time at my former job at a movie theater, where I worked for two and a half years. When I was first hired, I was very much the Activist. I was super invested in the job, I volunteered to work longer hours and I went above and beyond on a daily basis. This was because it was all so new and exciting. Over time, that initial enthusiasm waned. I was in the Participant stage for a long time, especially in comparison to the other new hires, simply because I enjoyed the job and I felt that a raise or promotion was within reach. As a Participant I was highly valued, and as a result garnered more hours than many of my coworkers. After about a year and a half, I dropped into Bystander mode, and then finally into Isolate mode. As an Isolate I still performed well, but I rarely interacted with my fellow employees if I could help it, I wasn’t overly concerned with the success of the theater, and I dreaded going to work most days. In essence, I was burned out. Most theater employees at some point hit that low stage and never get out of it, and so often quit, like I did. This in part explains the high turnover rate at movie theaters.
I can honestly say I have never been a Diehard; I have never been so wholly devoted to the job, cause, or leader. However, I have met a Diehard before. Although the General Manager of the movie theater I worked at was a leader in the context of our theater, he was an employee, a follower, of those higher up on the hierarchy. And he was completely devoted to the success of the theater, he was there all the time, he would help out us lower level employees when we were extremely busy, and he got to know regulars by name. His extreme dedication was a little bit infectious, and so our managers and Team Leaders all stepped up their game, and so we Team Members eventually did too. As a result, our theater became the most highly valued in the company, and we became the scale that all of the other theaters were measured by.