Running head: Reaction Paper

Reaction Paper to the Book Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment and Policy hapters !"1# $ame %nstitution &ate

Reaction Paper

'

hapter () Power and Moral Leadership *&acher +eltner, arrie ,) Langner, Maria Logli ,llison-) hapter se.en focuses on whether morality and power can /e reconciled and whether power can /e e0ercised in a manner that recogni1es morality and ethics *Rhode, '22!-) The authors undertake ground /reaking research on reduced power and ele.ated power as core areas of this discourse) Their research demonstrates that power has a moral moti.ator towards self" interest) The chapter is a/out four conclusions drawn /y the authors that the distri/ution of power does not occur in a random manner and without a structure and power affects moral 3udgment, which may lead to impulsi.eness which as a rationali1ed self"interest /asis) The authors also argue that power induces components of social consensus and that le.eling mechanisms constrain a/uses of power) 4ocial interactions always ha.e a component of power and status) There can /e no society that can e0ist without elements of power whether formal or informal) These power structures usually ha.e to deal with moral dilemmas and ethical situations that present the 5uestion as to whether morality and power can go hand in hand) 6le.ated power has the capa/ility of leading to /eha.ioral disinhi/iting, as well as, reduced .igilance) The authors do not e0plain why this is the case, /ut it can /e attri/uted to the fact that when a person or society is in power, then e.eryone else seems lowly and una/le to reach them or hurt them hence the reduced .igilance) Beha.ioral disinhi/iting occurs from the fact that a person feels that they are free to do what they wish) 6le.ated power is the power that has little checks and /alances and little regulation) ,n e0ample of ele.ated power is monarchs who are not answera/le to any legislatures and, therefore, they are some kind of supreme rulers) Their decisions are final, and their /eha.iors

Reaction Paper

disinhi/ited /ecause there would /e no conse5uences) , monarch7s position of power offers them a heightened sense of security which may reduce their le.el of .igilance regarding small issues such as petty thefts) 8owe.er they are /ound to /e more .igilant on issues such as maintaining power and control o.er their 3urisdiction) Therefore reduced .igilance as an effect of ele.ated power may not entirely /e conclusi.e in itself) The authors argue that people with ideology and who are partisan in their approach to things construe their disputes in a polari1ed and stereotypical fashion) Their ele.ated social status arising from power leads to a disinhi/ited form of social /eha.ior) They also argue that power from any source whether it is from e0perimental manipulation or group status relates to e0periences of increased positi.e emotion and a reduction of negati.e emotion) Personality traits also determine the use and e0periences of power /y different human /eings) Personality also affects the approach /y different people to moral and ethical 5uestions and, therefore, from a person7s personality it can /e possi/le to determine how they may act in a position of power or authority) Men and women also ha.e differences in how they would apply morality in positions of power *Powers 9 Reiser, '22:-) 4ocial class, ethnicity and social outcomes also determine whether morality and power can /e reconciled) $egotiation of morality in positions of power is dependent on whether the person in power is an ideological /elie.er or 3ust a normal leader) People who follow ideals normally tend to assume that they are the only ones who see things in a principled and o/3ecti.e fashion and this falls under a tendency called nai.e realism) The le.els of ideology can /reed e0tremism and /ias against opponents and this may determine how they use their power against such opponents) 6motions such as anger fear or sadness also can influence 3udgments and actions that may impact in the moral considerations of a decision maker in a position of ascendancy) Three moral domains, community, purity and autonomy relate to pre3udice and emotions that are fundamental

Reaction Paper

in the e0ercise of power) Based on this morality and power can /e reconciled especially due to the trite knowledge that power is only e0ercised /y human /eings who are essentially moral /eings) Part Three: 4elf"4acrifice and 4elf"%nterest hapter <) =rchestrating Prosocial Moti.es * ) &aniel Batson-) %n chapter <, Batson proposes that the four prosocial moti.es are methods of altering moral /eha.ior) These Prosocial moti.es are collecti.ism, principleism, altruism and egoism) Batson /elie.es that promoting and orchestrating the .alues of each moti.e contri/utes to endless possi/ilities for a moral leader) This assertion is independent of the strengths and weaknesses of each moti.e) The theory of rational choice proposes that all men are rational /eings and will make rational decisions in light of /enefits or disad.antages that the decisions may pose to them) Therefore if this theory were to /e applied strictly it would mean that the morality of human /eings is a product of rational choice) 6.idence that pro.es empathy induced altruism presents significant opposition to the .alue assumption that is attri/uted to the theory of rational choice) hapter < essentially considers the wider practical and theoretical implications of shifting /eyond the assumption of egoism in a uni.ersal setting to pluralism of Prosocial moti.ating factors that constitute not only altruism and egoism /ut principleism and collecti.ism, as well) ollecti.ism is the moti.ation that has the principal goal of increasing the cumulati.e welfare of a group) Principleism refers to moti.ation with the ultimate goal of ensuring a moral principal is upheld *Batson, '211-) 4uch a principle could include 3ustice or fairness or utilitarian principles of ensuring the greatest good for the greatest num/er of people) Baton seems to insinuate that the strengths of one of the moti.es can /e used to negate the weaknesses of another) This may /e a true position /ut as only theoretical in nature as

Reaction Paper

principleism for e0ample, is /uilt on ideology and therefore it would /e hard to con.ince a person who /elie.es in the principle of li/erty for e0ample that certain rights ha.e to /e restricted) The Prosocial moti.es ha.e a potential for conflict, and they may offer e0treme standpoints that may not necessarily lead to a common ground) 6ssentially self"sacrifice or self" interest has to pre.ail in any morality issue especially one that in.ol.es people with conflicting interests) The e0tent to which the self"interest or self"sacrifice is upheld is what determines which prosocial moti.e has /een applied) hapter >) 4elf"4acrifice and 4elf"%nterest: &o 6thical ?alues 4hape Beha.ior in =rgani1ational 4ettings@ *Tom R) TylerTom Tyler e0amines the tensions e0hi/ited /etween personal and organi1ational .alues in hapter >) =rgani1ations normally represent unified .alues /etween different .alue sets represented /y different people) Aor e0amples in an organi1ation owned /y Muslims, %slamic ideals and .alues are likely to /e dominant in the organi1ational setting) 8owe.er, the organi1ation may hire employees form di.erse .alue /ackgrounds /ased on their religion such as Jews and hristians, for e0ample, and this may present a conflict especially where the personal .alues of the different stakeholders and the organi1ational .alues ha.e significant irreconcila/le differences) Tyler7s arguments are essentially /ased on the ad.ancement and proliferation of education and how this has affected the society where competing ethical .alues /ecome e.ident *Tyler, et al, '22(-) Tyler proposes a self"interest idea of, internal .alues, as opposed to e0ternal .alues as a moti.ator of ethical /eha.ior) 4elf"interest notions a/out personal internal .alues are cheaper and re5uire little resources) 60ternal .alues are time and resource intensi.e *'1(-) The fact that internal .alues are self"regulatory means that they are easier to comply with) Tyler also a/ly answers the 5uestion on whether ethical .alues shape /eha.ior in an organi1ational setting)

Reaction Paper

8owe.er % think he could ha.e done more /y e0plaining situations where organi1ational .alues and personal .alues are in synergy and how this can /e made to happen) Training, for e0ample, can /e a good method of synergi1ing personal .alues with those of an organi1ation) 8iring younger employees with little e0perience in other issues can also make a difference in ensuring personal .alues and organi1ational .alues are in synergy) Tyler uses e.idence /ased research on the topics of rule following and rule /reaking and esta/lishes that these are not two sides of one coin) 8e manages to show that reinforcing personal .alues was more successful in reducing occurrences of rule /reaking within, an organi1ation, as opposed to enforcing rules of an organi1ation that are in conflict with personal .alues *'1>-) 6nforcing organi1ational .alues o.er those of pri.ate indi.iduals may lead to resistance which may impact producti.ity and lead to an increase in occurrences of rule /reaking) Reinforcing personal .alues makes compliance easier /ecause human /eings are less likely to go against personal .alues as these are essentially what define them) %f they go against personal .alues, it may lead to cogniti.e dissonance, and this may cause them to redefine their moral .alue systems) Personal .alues, therefore, ha.e a higher success rate in supporting and de.eloping an ethical culture o.er sanctions) 6thical .alues will shape /eha.ior in an organi1ation depending on how the organi1ation esta/lishes consistent policies and how well it supports employees in reinforcing personal .alues) This position /y Tyler supports the cogniti.e dissonance theory as well as Rhode7s proposition int he /ook to sustain ethical culture programs within organi1ations) Part Aour: 4er.ing the Pu/lic through the Pu/lic 4ector: ,ccounta/ility of $onprofit =rgani1ations hapter 12) 4trategic Philanthropy and %ts Malcontents *Paul Brest-)

Reaction Paper

%n chapter 12 Paul Brest del.es into the murky waters of Philanthropy and ,ccounta/ility related issues regarding philanthropy) Brest argues that with legal pro.isions such as section :21 *c- *#- of the %nternal Re.enue ode philanthropy is not immune to unethical conduct and is e0posed to it as much as /usiness *'#2-) 8e raises the notion of strategic philanthropy as a means of reconciling philanthropists with other stakeholders as well as to /ring a /alance to management of /usinesses with creati.ity and due diligence) Philanthropy has o.er the years /een looked at in a different light as a .ia/le way to a.oid paying ta0es and spending organi1ations money or wealth on issues that are not really charita/le in nature) Philanthropy is essentially a/out lo.ing people ad gi.ing resources to people who are not a/le for posterity causes) Brest7s assertion on strategic philanthropy has special ideas that are not part of the con.entional /usiness models) 8e has a greater emphasis on organi1ationsB corporate social responsi/ility and supports that implementation of matri0 measurement of outcomes and social returns on in.estments) 8owe.er this conflict with the whole idea of philanthropy and is also not practical as ser.ing people7s needs in desperate situations, for e0ample, is 5uite an intangi/le and comple0 dimension) Paul Brest, howe.er, raises points worth consideration /earing in mind recent reports that only small percentages of resources allocated /y organi1ations and indi.iduals to philanthropic causes actually ser.e the purposes they ha.e /een indicated to perform or reach the people they are meant to reach) orporations in many cases use philanthropic causes and pri.ate foundations to a.oid paying ta0es) 4ome pro3ects /eing funded /y philanthropy organi1ation are also cash cows, and for those that take off, they do not ser.e their purposes to an optimal le.el) Therefore, Brest7s concept of strategic philanthropy is important in ensuring that

Reaction Paper

<

optimal results are achie.ed and that nonprofit organi1ations and philanthropic causes remain accounta/le to all stakeholders) %t is a timely and useful method of ensuring that organi1ations ser.e the purposes they ha.e /een registered to ser.e and that philanthropists do not hide /ehind charita/le organi1ations and foundations to promote unethical /eha.ior or acti.ities) hapter 11) 6thics and Philanthropy *Bruce 4ie.ers-) Bruce 4ie.ers takes Brest7s assertions further in hapter 11 /y calling for philanthropic organi1ations and foundations to take their mantra of caring f or the pu/lic further /y pro.iding resources for funding to research and applied ethics initiati.es) ,ll le.els of go.ernment continue to regulate foundations /ecause they are matters of pu/lic trust) The le.els of regulations continue to increase /ecause of a/use of assets and misappropriation of funds in most of these foundations) This has created the need for organi1ations to ha.e /oards that construct systems which encourage accounta/ility and ensure that the mem/ers ha.e pu/lic trust in o.ersight of all operations) 4ie.ers has a deficient e0planation of the effort /y nonprofit and ci.il society organi1ations to promote pu/lic good and indicates that his e0planations is insufficient in the e0planation of the comple0 issues) 8e indicates that .alue pluralism contri/utes to ine5uities in distri/uti.e 3ustice e.en though it is well intended *4ie.ers, '212-) 6thical issues arise in philanthropy die to the tension that e0ists /etween collecti.e interests of the mem/ers of pu/lic, management committees and /oard mem/ers, as well as, the sectarian interests of the philanthropist) The interest of the philanthropist organi1ation or indi.idual is in many cases /ased on ideology) That is why philanthropic interests and foundations always indicate pro3ects they can fund and those they cannot fund) These interest areas are important to the philanthropist for .arious reasons) Chile philanthropic organi1ations ha.e a pu/lic interest at the cru0 of their

Reaction Paper

>

e0istence, pri.ate interests are also e.ident and, therefore, there is a need to /alance the pri.ate and pu/lic sides in a way that will allow the reali1ation of the goals of these organi1ations as well as the ethical interests of the philanthropists) hallenges are more /ound to occur where the pri.ate interests of philanthropy are unethical in nature yet the organi1ations profess programs that ad.ance the pu/lic good) Part Ai.e: Moral Leadership: Perspecti.es and %mplications hapter 1') 60ercising Moral ourage: , &e.elopmental ,genda *Linda ,) 8ill-) Linda 8ill considers the e0ercise of moral courage for a de.elopment /ased agenda /y e0amining de.eloping management students for ethical leadership) The students tend to associate leadership roles in terms of pri.ileges and rights rather than duties and o/ligations) This is a wrong way to look at things in an ethical or moral perspecti.e /ecause it focuses on what those /eing led can do for the leader and how the leader can /enefit rather than how the leader can assist the entire organi1ation to collecti.ely achie.e their o/3ecti.es) 8ill esta/lishes that determining their .alues through a trial /y fire can help in shaping their influence and power as emerging leaders where they can grow from power /ased on position to influential power) , person with moral courage is a person that consistently seeks and stri.es to do the right thing and encourage others to do the right thing) ,ccording to 8illBs findings if the students percei.e their leadership positions as positions of pri.ilege and rights then their actions would pro/a/ly /e .ery different if they .iew leadership from the perspecti.e e of rights and o/ligations) Moral courage is espoused /y professional, personal and organi1ational moral principles) Professional and organi1ational moral principles may stifle the internal .alue systems of a person) %n many cases, issues of morality are standardi1ed within different conte0ts) Aor e0ample, stealing is wrong in any moral code and, therefore, a person with moral courage can

Reaction Paper

12

stand up against any mode of stealing /ecause they also feel it is a duty and o/ligation they owed to the society, tot themsel.es and to the .ictims) Moral courage is especially considered in the conte0t of challenging the status 5uo or people who are more powerful or influential and when the conse5uences can /e dire) Moral courage includes taking the moral road e.en against oneself to ensure that the right thing pre.ails at all times * omer 9 ?ega, '211-) Linda fails to conclusi.ely esta/lish how e0ercising moral courage applies to the de.elopmental agenda) Moral courage can /e learnt at any stage of life of any person especially during their younger years of life when the personal moral and ethical codes are de.eloped) %t is important to note that moral courage is looked at in the conte0t of internal .alues) %f a person does not consider something to /e right, then moral courage cannot apply in such a situation) ogniti.e /eha.ior and de.elopment ena/les a person to pick elements of moral courage depending on how they see their guardians and other mem/ers of society handle ethical situations) %t can also /e imparted theoretically /ut practical aspects are the /est due to cogniti.e learning) hapter 1#) Perspecti.es on Dlo/al Moral Leadership *+irk =) 8anson-) %n hapter 1#, +irk =) 8anson notes and argues that glo/al moral leadership is different from glo/al ethical leadership) Dlo/al ethical leadership seeks to accomplish organi1ational o/3ecti.es and goals through the use of ethical means) Dlo/al moral leadership, is mostly used across di.erse cultural organi1ations that in.ol.e transformation which challenge group /eha.ior *Dumede, '211-) Dlo/al moral leadership is a relati.e concept while ethical leadership can /e standardi1ed) 6ssentially 8anson argues along the /asic differentiations /etween ethics and morality where the idea that something is unethical does not mean it is immoral) 8owe.er all immoral actions are unethical) 8anson creates a standard for moral leaders across the world to search for moral resonance in their personal undertakings as well as in organi1ational /eha.ior)

Reaction Paper

11

Basically, 8anson is arguing that personal .alues and morality may determine ethical /eha.ior) Morality is imprinted in the human mindset while ethical /eha.ior may /e codified such as in rules and regulations) %f the morality of a person is in order, then they may as well /e a/le to su/scri/e to reasona/le codes of ethics) Aor an immoral person rules can always /e /roken) Morality ena/les a person to understand the purpose of the rules and, therefore, their decision making will /e /ased on the purposes of ethical rules or considerations) Dlo/al moral leadership is, therefore, going to remain a relati.e concept /ecause of the different moral .alue systems that the world depends on) The differences are /ased on the ena/lers and reinforcers of such moral .alue systems such as religion, political inclinations and ideology as well as Prosocial moti.ations) onclusion The /ook synergi1es different practical concepts relating to ethics and each chapter inks to the ne0t with themes that are applica/le across the different chapters) The unified themes ena/le the reader to percei.e ethics and morality as matters that can /e taught in a practical setting to ensure that optimal results and morally upright and ethical decisions are made) The different concepts intertwine to a powerful read filled with practical historical and hypothetical e0amples that ha.e real time applications in practical settings and, therefore, has the potential to address significant portions of ethical issues facing indi.iduals, organi1ations, go.ernments and the glo/e in general)

Reaction Paper

1'

References Batson, &) *'211-) Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Moti.es and a More 8umane 4ociety) Altruism in Humans, 4*:-) Retrie.ed Ae/ruary #, '21;, from http:EEd0)doi)orgE12)12>#Eacprof:osoE>(<21>:#;12!:)22#)2212 omer, &) R), 9 ?ega, D) *'211-) Moral courage in organizations: doing the right thing at work) ,rmonk, $)F): M)6) 4harpe) Dumede, ?) *'211, 4eptem/er :-) The world needs a /etter moral compass) Thought Leader) Retrie.ed Ae/ruary #, '21;, from http:EEwww)thoughtleader)co)1aE.usigumedeE'211E2>E2:Ethe"world"needs"a"/etter" moral"compassE Powers, R) 4), 9 Reiser, ) *'22:-) Dender and 4elf"Perceptions of 4ocial Power) Social Behavior and Personality: An nternational !ournal, ""*!-, ::#":!<) Rhode, &) L) *'22!-) Moral leadershi#: the theory and #ractice o$ #ower% &udgment% and #olicy) 4an Aransisco, ,: Jossey"Bass) 4ie.ers, B) R) *'212-) 'ivil Society% Philanthro#y% and the (ate o$ the 'ommons) 8ano.er: Tufts Gni.ersity Press) Tyler, T) R), allahan, P) 6), 9 Arost, J) *'22(-) ,rmed, ,nd &angerous *@-: Moti.ating Rule ,dherence ,mong ,gents =f 4ocial ontrol) Law ) Society *eview, 4+*'-, ;:(";>')