Our family had a lively discussion at dinner time today about the court martial trial of Ehren Watada which begins today in Fort Lewis, Washington.

Watada is the Army officer who decided, after spending months researching his anticipated assignment to Iraq, that the war was a morally indefensible war. He offered to go fight somewhere else, and he even offered to resign. But, he is a soldier, and a soldier is supposed to obey his superiors without question.

Therefore, the Army had to do what it is doing, court martial him. He is being charged on one count of failure to deploy and two counts (reduced from the original four) of “conduct unbecoming of an officer” for making statements against the war and against the Bush administration. While there are many who support him, there are also those who label him un-American, and “a weasel”.

I asked my children what they thought of Ehren, and their comments were interesting. If he is right, my daughter, opined, then they should let him go. She was referring to Watada’s contention that the war is illegal. Unfortunately, that is not the basis of the trial. Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 6% [?]

In the classic scene in A Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson, playing Colonel Jessep shouted, “You can’t handle the truth!” when grilled about the extent of military coverups, secrets and leadership knowledge about wrongdoings in a military base. The unspoken understanding, apparently, is that leaders have privileged access to the truth, so they have a responsibility to guard it, to act (or not act) upon it and only they are appropriately situated to appreciate it.

Leaving aside the questionability of this seemingly widespread assumption, I would like to ask a related question: what happens when leaders do not know the whole truth? What happens, that is, when the system fails them and they have lack of access to the information, or when those “in the know” hide the truth from them? Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 23% [?]

Technorati Tags: truth, misrepresentation, leaders, knowledge, enron, awb, corruption, food-for-oil iraq, alexander downer, transparency, accountability

This article, which reports on the fallout from a smirk on a face of an employee during a staff meeting, brought back memories, and perhaps a little bit of a smirk. Not at the poor guy who “got the sack” as they say downunder, or at the employer who brandished his toxicity in response to what he felt to be a personal threat.

It reminded me of the times I was accused of smirking not a few times while working for my former boss (whom I profiled as a paradigmatic toxic boss). Up until then, no one has ever attributed that kind of action to me, and I honestly didn’t know exactly how to do that. Honestly! Tell, me! How exactly does one smirk?

Those were the days. It surprises me that managers and others who have the responsibility to run people and organizations have the audacity to act as if they deserve unfeigned loyalty and respect without earning them. I hope the pressure that the union and the authorities are putting on the company will bear fruit and justice for all.

NOTE: Previously, I posted on toxic leadership here, here and here. I also mused about what it is about the position of leadership that apparently makes it so unique that not only do leaders think there have a justification for moral deviations, but most of us seem to tolerate these moral shortcomings and some even expect them of our corporate and political leaders. See also this short wikipedia article.

Popularity: 4% [?]

In every sphere of life, “thinking outside the box” is a virtue that is not only encouraged, and highly desirable. This is especially so in the area of business, politics and probably also in religion.

But, does “thinking outside the box”, the virtue of not allowing the constraints of culture, habit or history limit one in problem solving or decision making, also cause one to take short cuts in moral issues?

This is especially significant for people in leadership positions, for they have the power to influence people, organizations and society itself. Recently, I reflected on a problematic question in leadership and moral justification, specifically about the nature of our understanding about the responsibilities of leadership that make us think that there are reasons to excuse or at least justify their immoral actions, at least some of the time.

When one thinks about the type of people that we typically choose to be leaders, one of the more highly prized virtues we desire in those who lead is this quality of flexibility and creativity. However, does this mean that we are also seeking those who are more prone to take liberties in ethical matters?

For certainly we do not wish to have our leaders not respect moral demands upon them or their organizations, while at the same time we do not wish for our leaders to be hampered by restrictive thinking and inflexibility.

Is this a real dilemma? How do we reconcile this state of affairs?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Technorati Tags: leadership, moral justification, creativity, ethics, virtues

Interesting thought this. Considering the number of corporate leaders who misbehave badly and political leaders who often put themselves above the law, or at least, above the demands of morality, this might not such a crazy question after all.

By virtue of the responsibilities that some leaders hold, is it possible to justify their immoral acts on the basis of these unique demands or responsibilities of their position? Perhaps leaders with a consuming vision and who have access to resources and influence that can bring about massive transformation and change the world for the better face unique enough challenges to set them apart from ordinary people. So much so that they can be excused, and even justified, in deviating from the demands of morality.

Further, what if a leader have access to privileged information, say, that the country is in mortal danger, perhaps, from terrorists who do not play by the rules? Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 4% [?]

A speaker at a business seminar that I attended today was advocating the virtues of servant leadership as a contemporary business management philosophy. During the discussion we had a couple of exchanges about the fact that the concept of servant leadership does not have to mean that the leader adopt a position or attitude of weakness.

In other words, a leader who adopts an servant leader approach does not do so by renouncing his authority or command of the organization. Nor does he do it in a subservient manner, pandering to the interests of all and sundry. However, it is an attitude that is inclusive, empowering and prioritizes the needs and interests of not just his followers, but also that of his consituents. This includes taking the needs and interests of the organization and the community into account in his tasks and objectives as leader.

What surprised me was that the seminar leader went on to say Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 6% [?]

In corporate America today, servant leadership is tauted as the key to revolutionizing the way American corporations manage their people. Specifically, servant leadership is taught as the way the new manager needs to learn to relate to their reports. No longer are they to structure the organization heirarchically in the traditional manner, but they are encouraged to collaborate, to involve, to engage, and to serve their consituencies, their stakeholders. This new way of relating to each other in the corporation will ensure that everyone buys into the corporate vision, and that the corporation will be faster able to achieve its goals.

Several times in the gospels, Jesus also admonished His followers that those who would lead are to be the servants of all. Often I hear that this means that a leader must first be the servant. One is first a servant, says one consultant, and then he or she is chosen to lead. Somehow, I think that is not exactly what the Master Servant said. Nor is it what Robert K. Greenleaf, the father of the contemporary Servant Leadership movement had in mind when he penned the words of the seminal article, “The Servant as Leader.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 5% [?]

Stephen Covey wrote in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People something to the effect that it is not important if, as a leader, you make mistakes. People can, and do, forgive mistakes. What is more critical, what people find unforgiveable, is the reluctance to admit that you were wrong. Such reluctance reflect a duplicity and an acute lack of courage and transparency that betray the toxic leader.

Earlier in my brief analysis of Kings Saul and David of the Old Testament, in trying to understand leadership principles from their lives, I suggested that this quality-the willingness to admit your wrongs-was key to authentic leadership. So, when John Edwards wrote this piece in the Washington Post, was he practising good, principled, servant leadership? Or was he displaying characteristics of toxicity? What do you think?

Popularity: 4% [?]