Valueless Leadership

Last week, here in New Jersey, a two-year federal probe into a money laundering scheme operating between the New York area and Israel mushroomed into one of the biggest bribery and corruption stings in the state's history (notice its' only one of the biggest). Forty-four people were arrested including three New Jersey mayors, two members of the New Jersey Legislature, a bundle of local officials, five rabbis, and a Brooklyn man accused of trafficking in human kidneys.Today, one of those arrested committed suicide.

What does this have to do with leadership in the workplace?

For those of us who live here, New Jersey is where we work to build our families. Those we elect are entrusted with providing leadership that supports our efforts and doing it with integrity consistent with that trust.

How can this happen?

I was reminded of a real-life situation that took place in a Teaneck, New Jersey school a few years back.

A girl in a "Values Education" class had found a purse containing $1000 and returned it to its owner. The teacher asked for the class's reaction. Every one of her fellow students concluded the girl had been "foolish." Most of the students contended that if someone is careless, they should be punished. When the teacher was asked what he said to the students, he responded, "Well, of course, I didn't say anything. If I come from the position of what is right and what is wrong, then I'm not their counselor. I can't impose my views."

J. Allen Smith, considered a father of many modern education reforms, concluded in the end, "The trouble with us reformers is that we've made reform a crusade against all standards. Well, we've smashed them all, and now neither we nor anybody else has anything left."

The teacher in the story above used the "counseling" gambit as an excuse to circumvent the teaching/leadership role that parents assumed was happening after they put their kids on the school bus.  When leaders in any organization--business, non-profit, or governmental--announce that they are "counselors" or "totally inclusive" or "totally participative", they are really announcing that the longevity and power of their position is more important than declaring what they actually stand for.

Think About This

When this happens, they are making a declaration: "I am all about my self."

Leaders whose stock-in-trade is glib talk with survey-driven promises are nothing more than beach dwellers who build sand castles instead of possessing the courage to draw a line in the sand.

Look around at the organizations in your life. Find out who has the courage to draw a line in the sand and is willing and able to completely explain the values behind it as well as the reliability of the foundation for those values.

In the absence of that you'll be left with a plastic bucket and shovel. And watch out for the waves.

Comments

[Mary Jo Asmus]

Steve,

Your well crafted statement that "Leaders whose stock-in-trade is glib talk with survey-driven promises are nothing more than beach dwellers who build sand castles instead of possessing the courage to draw a line in the sand" elicits some questions for me and others: Has our system of electing leaders, with all of the money and marketing involved, created this kind of "valueless leadership"? And in fact, how might we be responsible for valueless leadership in our own communities and organizations - even those that are not elected?

We, as followers, may have nobody but ourselves to blame for not expending the effort to look beyond the marketing or individual charisma and elect, support, or follow decent, value-driven individuals. They are out there, and it is everyone's responsibility to see that they become our leaders.

I tend to agree with Peter Block that "followers create leaders", which is easier to see in the case of those we elect. In a way, it applies to all leaders.

[peter vajda]

Another perspective:

Actually, Steve, value-less leadership in many instance is, in effect, moral disengagement.

Some people routinely behave with value-less, unethical, immoral and untrustworthy behaviors and then rationalize their dishonesty in a way that lets them off the honesty, responsibility or ethical hook.

There’s a growing body of evidence that says such folks disengage from their core values, detour from their moral compass and, more than that, consciously forget information that would otherwise limit their inappropriate behavior ("If I come from the position of what is right and what is wrong, then I'm not their counselor. I can't impose my views.")

Psychologists tell us that “moral disengagement” and “moral self-regulation” lead to dishonesty, lying, and abdication of self-responsibility. The deal is there are two modes of reacting when - either by commission or omission - one commits a dishonest act: (1) one can link their act to their moral goals and values or (2) one can uncouple their irresponsibility, so-called neutrality, or dishonesty from their moral goals and values through a rationalization and judgmental process, i.e., “moral disengagement”, in order to clear their conscience - in order to view their action as morally permissible.

The vast number of “hypocrites” who have surfaced or been outed (and those who haven’t - yet) in recent days, weeks, months and years in the arenas of, for example, politics, sports, finance and religion are a prime example of the duplicity that moral disengagement perpetuates.

The hypocrisy is couched in the belief that “I engage in more ethical behavior than others.” Or, “I am less unfair than others.” Or “I have a right to be more suspicious of others’ actions than they do of mine.” Or, “Others are more greedy and driven by money than I am.” Or, “I am more honest and trustworthy than others, but in this case…...”

The ego-need underlying moral disengagement is to absolve one’s self of guilt, blame or shame for their behavior, for the disconnect existing between their values and their actions. When one decides to act dishonestly and irresponsibly, their tendency to morally disengage is higher than when they consider another’s unethical behavior. Simply, “I’m ethical and you’re not” - given the same dishonest behavior.

Questions to consider to assess whether one practices moral disengagement might be:

What is the culture around dishonesty, cheating, lying, or behaving unethically, i.e, vaalue-less behavior? What are the tacit, subtle, silent or unwritten rules that reflect immorality, illegality, dishonesty and unethical behavior? Is moral disengagement a “business-as-usual” strategy? Is there a growing sense of pervasive dishonesty? To what extent do I use moral disengagement as a strategy to excuse my or another’s unethical actions as permissible? And, why? And, to what extent do I use moral disengagement to actually perpetuate unethical and dishonest behavior - mine and others’?

With respect to Mary Jo's pointer to Peter Block's quote, "followers create leaders", we get who we deserve. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy as he is us."

And BTW, there are those "spiritual" folks who, upon finding the $1000 would keep it and, in a form of moral disengagement, assert: "It's a form of abundance that I've been visualizing and 'positively thinking about' all these years. See the Law of Attraction works!" No attempt to even consider finding the rightful owner. Moral disengagement at its finest.

[steveroesler]

Mary Jo:

Read Peter's response.

Peter:

Thank you for adding the context of 'moral disengagement'.

[Bay Jordan]

Steve

A great piece - and one that I would say is both necessary and timely! The other comments indicate the depths to which one can go to respond and the complexity of the subject. I prefer to keep it simple and do my best to adhere to the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" This is perhaps the one single thing that is common to all philosophical and "religious" teaching, which indicates the strength of its morality. By putting yourself in the shoes of the person who had lost the $1,000 you can pretty easily determine what is the right thing to do.

I might add that Peter's dig at the 'spiritual' people is simply a biassed generalisation that unjustly unites people who claim to be spiritual with those who really are. Those who truly have an innate spirituality would never let their moral compass stray to the extent he describes and it is disengenuous to imply it is universally applicable. I don't dispute there may be some, but he doesn't make that distinction and to that extent is making a moral judgement that he is not entitled to.

[Miki]

The the need for values also begs the question: At what point does moral engagement morph into rigid ideology? And ideology into bigotry? When does 'doing the right thing' become 'my way or the highway'?

Most importantly, how do we preserve the values and avoid the excess?

[peter vajda]

Miki asks an interesting question, "At what point does moral engagement morph into rigid ideology? And ideology into bigotry? When does 'doing the right thing' become 'my way or the highway'?

Me: when we stop asking the question with our ego-mind and start asking it with our heart.

As Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has it's reason which "reason" doesn't understand."

[Steve Roesler]

Peter, Miki, Bay,

It strikes me that our discussion about values is a perfect illustration of the reason for organizations and their leaders to openly discuss what they value and why.

The philosophical underpinnings expressed here show a depth of emotion that, unexpressed in a relationship, could cause confusion and misunderstanding.

Thanks for putting it out there...