On Aristotle and the Character of Leaders

We have been asked (on a few separate occasions) to analyze the role ethics plays in leadership, what kind of character we expect from our leaders, what our own values are, and even the importance of being ethical as opposed to simply appearing so. As we continue to discuss these ideas in class, I keep returning to the idea of balance. This week, my thoughts were echoed by the words of Aristotle, and, as I prepared for the weeks ahead, Gautama Siddhartha Buddha.

As Ciulla points out in her introduction to Chapter Two, although leaders are human and “subject to the same flaws and weaknesses as everyone else,” we often expect them to be more ethical and have higher standards. She continues, explaining how we often view leaders of the past as meeting these perceptions while leaders of today continuously fail us; and we wonder why that is. As we see more of these flaws and our leaders continue to fail us, it seems more and more that leaders do not necessarily need to just traits and ethical character that we desire. How can we continue to expect ethical leadership?

Again, I tell you, the answer is balance.

Aristotle outlines the requirements for a virtuous life using this idea. We must not be fearful or rash, but brave; we must not indulge in pleasure or expect pain, but find temperance; we must not be wasteful or greedy, but generous; we must not be passive or irascible, but mild; we must not be boastful or self-deprecating, but truthful; we must not be ingratiating or flattering, but friendly; we must not be ashamed or disgraceful, but virtuous; we must not be spiteful or envious, but indignant; and the list goes on. It even continues levels of character pertaining to intelligence and wisdom. Each character describes an excess of a trait, a deficiency of a trait, and then desired mean. Each person falls somewhere on the scale between the three, but the ideal person is balanced entirely on the means.

Returning to Ciulla’s introduction, the author addresses the point that today there is much more exposure – in the past, we saw only the actions that leaders made public and really had no way of publicizing their flaws. Today, it often only takes the click of a button. She states that leaders of the past and leaders of today were similarly ethical, but that today we see the flaws that, in the past, were hidden.

I think she is on to something.

I think in addition to seeing more we are also expecting more. As we see more and more flaws, we perceive more and more undesirable traits and therefore wish for more and more desirable ones. The misdeeds of current leaders feed our craving for leaders without any flaws. In this fashion, we have tipped the balance that Aristotle instructs us to find. We have, in a sense, blown our idea of leadership out of proportion.

Further, this tipped balance has burned like a wildfire, worsening as we move in to the future without righting the scales. As our expectations of leaders rise, those who wish to lead must try harder to meet our expectations. They try to emulate perfect virtue – they must not lie, cheat, steal, abuse power, exercise anger, or be upset. They must be passionate, honest, reasonable, caring, and collaborative. They must be interested in people and never interested in themselves. They must have no flaws. However, this character that aspiring leaders strive for is out of balance, according to Aristotle. It requires too much of people and, frankly, they are wearing out.

How long can you continue to never give in to your desires, instead sacrificing to your followers in order to be the perfect person? The answer: not very long. This is when we begin to find flaws. Leaders reach breaking point as they succeed as leaders and they give in to a craving or exercise an indulgence. They let loose.

But to maintain the respect of followers and continue to succeed, leaders continue to attempt to appear ethical; they indulge in secret. But, due to the higher levels of exposure, we catch them. We accuse them of unethical behavior and mark them as failed leaders, continuing to wish for the leaders of the past.

The system is out of balance and will remain out of balance until we are aware of the situation and take the time to set it back on track. This, however, will take a lot of time, analysis, and effort as we are all guilty.

In conclusion, I do not think it is important for leaders to fulfill society’s definition ethical behavior all the time – they do not have to be saintly people completely clean of flaws. Instead, they must be rational, honest, and reasonable about themselves, their lives, their goals, and the organization they are leading. They must understand the balance between ethics, risk, and reality. If leaders (and followers) are able to find this balance, it will not be a matter of appearing versus actually acting ethically – we will accept that as humans we are flawed but are still capable of making balanced decisions and ethical actions for the good of the organization.

Self Interest and the Moral Code

On my way to the parking lot after class, I held a door for another student. It seems like a simple act but, after our intense discussion on self interest and morality, it served as a continuation to my internal debate.

Thrasymachus, Socrates, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rand...each excerpt we read for class had an element of self-interest and morality, whether it was through a character (as Plato presented) or through the theorists themselves. This created a fairly heated debate as we attempted to muddle through the ideas of morality in terms of leadership and our daily lives. At the end of it, I felt that I could not effectively communicate my ideas. I’m not sure if it is because I am on the fence about my own beliefs—that I am easily swayed and confused by a modern form of Socrates’ dialectic—or if it is because I simply do not hold a popular opinion. And if my opinion is not popularly recognized, does that mean it is immoral according to American society? I’m not sure I’m ready to accept either of these conclusions.

Thus, I will try again to flesh out what I believe about ethics, humanity, and the moral code.

I am not denying that humans could be entirely self interested in their actions and judgments. A common theme presented itself in the readings: that one should have the ability to bring happiness and benefit to one’s life; a theme that could be easily interpreted as self interest. They differ, however, in their descriptions of the benefits and how they are achieved, sparking the negative connotation of self-interest.

For Hobbes, men are purely out for their own gain; there is no security as the weaker will band together to overthrow the stronger. For Hobbes, Justice is getting even with those around you as a result of jealousy. Because of this dark view of human self-interest, Hobbes argues that men are immoral and need laws to keep them civil.

In The Republic, Plato presents a discussion between Thrasymachus and Socrates about Justice. Thrasymachus, the Sophist, voices the idea that Justice provides advantage to injust people while ultimately hindering the person who is actually acting justly. Unlike Hobbes, he does not say that men do not have the ability to be just, but that it is less desirable for them. Thrasymachus’ argument is, of course, that there is no self-interested benefit in acting justly; rather, it is in the unjust act that there is a self-interested benefit; therefore injustice is the virtue.

While Socrates ultimately refutes the idea that injustice is a virtue, he does not refute the idea that Justice provides an advantage for others. For Socrates, this service to others is what makes Justice a virtue over injustice. He uses an example of a band of thieves: if they were entirely unjust, they would be at each other’s throats. But instead, they must be partially just as they are able to work together and help each other achieve a common goal. They are benefitted by each other, whether or not their ultimate goal is in fact a moral one (that is another argument in itself). Socrates continues, arguing that the virtue of Justice provides health to the soul – a greater advantage than wealth and power.

In short, although a just being may not be as monetarily successful as the lying, cheating, unjust person in power, he will still lead a better, happier, more fulfilled life because his soul is healthy through the virtue of Justice.

Now, isn’t this Ayn Rand’s argument as well? She states that we “must choose actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man—for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.”

Rand, however, was using this goal of ultimate happiness in a different context. She argues that self interest is best – an argument that would seem to go right along with Thrasymachus’ original statement. However, Rand argues that “man is a standard for morality, but your own life is its purpose.” In society, we lay out certain moral codes that are generally accepted. We use them to determine standards for right and wrong based on public and private harm, public offense, and public and private benefit (as J.S. Mill outlined). Rand takes this idea of what is socially acceptable and challenges us to think about what we are doing and why we are doing it. You should not have to do something, or refrain from doing something, if you feel it is not helping you to fulfill and enjoy your life, whether or not it is considered “moral.” Although Rand takes an extreme to her argument in favor of self interest, I think we can apply a portion of her reasoning to create a balanced view of morality.

Some may say Rand’s argument is selfish – that we will collapse in to a state of war, unable to work together as we are always fighting for ourselves. Plato would argue that unless we could work for each other, we would never find Justice—what if one tried to justify killing a man because it contributed to the fulfillment of his life?

But even a serial killer cannot say he has thought about his personal choices and decided they were in his best interests. A serial killer begins killing slowly – it would seem that he takes pleasure from his actions. It would seem that he is doing exactly as Ayn Rand suggested. But as he continues killing, he begins to kill faster, going through what is called a spiral. He is going insane, until he can eventually no longer function. Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, this doesn’t sound like a fulfilled life – by neither Rand’s nor Plato’s standards. When one thinks about his actions and decisions as Rand suggests, he would realize that killing is not just, nor does it lead to fulfillment and happiness. He would become a rational, moral human being, able to discover the health of the soul that Plato held so highly.

Of the four, Plato, speaking through the character of Socrates, holds the most straightforwardly positive view of self interest. Though he, too, experienced the hardships of life his view is the least tainted by the corruption of humanity.

In class, before we discussed the above theorists, we discussed the transitions of the Chinese dynasties. Most interestingly, we discussed how the dynasties would begin strong and favorable to the people only to deteriorate in to corruption by the end. Machiavelli presents a similar idea. He directs leaders to be moral when possible, but also warns that leaders will inevitably need to become immoral lest they be overtaken by human immorality. Though I do not agree with Machiavelli’s motivations (to remain in power over people as a means to fulfill one’s own life), I am intrigued by his observation.

If I had let that door swing closed on that student after class; if I had sold my partnership for 4%; if I abandoned kindness and deserted true connections, I would be ahead and alone. I could trust no one, I could rely on no one – and so I would have rely on myself and protect myself against the enemies I may have made on my rise to the top. I’d become bitter and cold. I’d follow the trend of negative self interest. But when I think rationally about what I want to do for people, what I can do for people, and what I need to do for myself, I create harmony. I create a balance between service and success and I am fulfilled.

I don’t think that we are an entirely self-interested species. I think that we often have self-interested tendencies and that we often let ourselves go, but ultimately, we are motivated by something a little more complicated than that. Perhaps, if Plato’s dialectic between Socrates and Thrasymachus were to have continued, they would have discovered the true definition of justice to be balance.

Thoughts on Moral Development

Consider this:

You’ve been working in a theatre as a technical director. You’ve been building four sets a season for the last ten year. Most of these sets are constructed from combinations of wood and cardboard that you purchase from a bulk distributor – the same bulk distributor for the past ten years. However, as you prepare for the new season, you learn that there is a new lumber store in the area willing to offer you a 4% discount for supplies for the whole season. You don’t hesitate – the theatre has been struggling and this would be an excellent way to cut back on the scene shop budget. You accept.

It seems like the obvious choice, right?

In most Asian societies they wouldn’t agree. We discussed in class the different relationships that exist in Asian culture. A business relationship, as you would have developed with your cardboard and wood supplier, is considered equal to that of a friend. You trust who you work with and you only work with people you trust. You uphold the relationships that you’ve built above all other business transactions. In most Asian societies, your deal with the new lumber store made it known that a person could be bought for 4%. You would throw away 10 years of good business and good relationship for 4%.

I couldn’t get the comparison out of my head. Are American’s just cold?

After reviewing Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, I found an answer.

According to Kohlberg, the sixth stage of moral development is the internalization of “universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity, and equality of the human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.” According to Kohlberg, one who has reached the sixth stage of moral development “would not [for example] vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others.”

Perhaps it is not that Americans are cold, but that we, as a society, have not reached this sixth stage of moral development. We are still learning to respect our fellow man as a human being. After all, we are a country that is a mere 235 years old compared to the impressive 7000-year history of Asian civilization.

Returning to Kohlberg, an earlier stage or moral development caught my attention. In this stage, “right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms such as those of the market place. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of ‘you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours’, not loyalty, gratitude, or justice.” This description of human relationships seems to hit the nail on the head, if you ask me. It is accepted in American society to work for oneself; to work with a notion of self-interest. We are always looking for the best deal, the easiest route, or what is the best for ME. We seem to have no thought or care of what another may be feeling or experiencing, or how our actions may affect them. We would sell each other out for a mere 4% if it meant we could get ahead.

What may be surprising – maybe even a let-down to ever-patriotic Americans – is that this stage is only the second stage; the first level of moral development. We have four stages of development to experience before American society could even begin to be considered “moral” in the eyes of Kohlberg. And yet we have this ever-present desire to be a superpower; to be the leading country of the world; to be the best. We think we can go in to other countries and fix them – give their citizens better lives.

Perhaps we really can help – who am I to say that we are nothing? But when I look around America and see families falling apart, people starving on the streets, groups of people persecuted in the name of “right and wrong,” I can’t ignore how far we still have to go.

In Asian culture, it is expected that the younger respect, obey, and learn from the elder. Maybe it is time we, as a nation in our wild youth, sat down learned from a nation for wiser through its years.