The Principles and Practice of Effective Leadership

John Zinkin, Christopher Bennett

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9783110707809
• eBook ISBN:
  9783110708066
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Corporate Governance
• Index: Business

This thought-provoking and timely book asserts that the dichotomy between leaders and managers described in much business literature fails to recognize how the two roles overlap. The book discusses techniques for senior executives based on history and neuroscience to enhance their "managerial leadership" in different environments. The ethical dilemmas of directors and executives are explored, with lessons from both leadership failures and successes.

The Principles and Practice of Effective Leadership redefines "leadership" as a morally neutral activity, reflecting the impact of strategic, cultural and operational contexts on a leader's effectiveness. The authors suggest there are universal but morally neutral techniques for effective leadership that depend on the context in which they are practiced. In Part 1, the careers and personalities of historical figures including Elizabeth Tudor, Napoleon, and Atatürk are examined. Part 2 deliberates on why leadership cannot be separated from effective management and concludes that leadership is managerial, and best encapsulated in the concept of "wayfinding." In Part 3, the authors discuss the techniques "wayfinders" can learn to be both effective and ethical, using a simple and practical framework.

This insightful book is essential reading for professionals, coaches, consultants, and academics interested in techniques and ethics of leadership and executive education.

Part 1: Lessons from History

Universal but morally neutral techniques exist for effective leadership, but the effectiveness of particular leadership techniques depends on the context in which they are practiced. The correct context identification, and selection of leadership techniques deployed in response, determine the effectiveness of leaders.

In order to reconcile the two apparently contradictory positions of Machiavelli, and illustrate this proposition, we briefly examine the careers of three great historical leaders: Elizabeth Tudor, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Atatürk.

We chose these leaders from history rather than current leaders because we believe temporal distance from events is important to be able to assess the lasting lessons from their successes and failures and their remarkable understanding of complexity, intellectual curiosity, and mastery of detail. They were not guilty of oversimplification in the face of complicated circumstances, but were able to adhere to a long-term vision of the kind of society each wanted to create.

Chapter 1 Leadership is Morally Neutral

Throughout history, followers of certain leaders have been prepared to die to achieve what was asked of them. Effective leaders persuade their followers to change the world or to resist change through good timing, a strong sense of purpose, exceptional ability, communicating their vision, and influencing their followers’ values.

Some modern literature on leadership defines “leadership” as “morally good leadership” and redefines leadership to achieve immoral or amoral ends as “power wielding” instead.

Leaders are individuals who exercise authority and exert power. They get other people to go along, to follow. Inspiration is part of the appeal to others, but, as Freud insisted, so are fear, coercion, and conformity. To pretend leaders are not power wielders – a pretence which Barbara Kellerman argued was embraced by a ‘‘tacit alliance’’ among theoreticians, practitioners, researchers, educators, consultants, and trainers – was to ‘‘whistle in the dark’’ … Freud, not Carlyle, speaks to our contemporary awareness of … the ‘‘dark side’’ of leadership.¹

[Emphases ours]

Only considering leadership deployed for good purposes as “leadership” is problematic; it confuses, misleads, and is a barrier to understanding:²

1. Confusing: For most people, “leader” refers to “any individual who uses power, authority and influence to get others to go along.”³ Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are commonly called “leaders” and not “power wielders.”
2. Misleading: The distinction is false because:

   Leadership can be considered the exercise of influence, or a power relation, or an instrument of goal achievement, or a differentiated role … Those definitions are value-free and there is no good reason to distinguish “leaders” and “power-wielders”; to compare them is not to compare apples and oranges, but apples and apples.⁴

3. Barrier to understanding: “We need to learn about good leadership by studying both what makes good leaders and what makes bad leaders so that we can avoid their mistakes …”⁵

Conflating three ingredients of leadership: Power (how they acquire and maintain their positions); personality (how they energize followers), and purpose (what leaders try to achieve); makes understanding the whole process difficult.

Leaders can be divided into those with morally “good” purposes and those with “bad” purposes. The ways they achieved, maintained, and used their power can be characterized as morally “good” or “bad”; and as having “positive” or “negative” impacts depending on subjective judgments. Different individuals reach different conclusions about the “goodness” or “wickedness” of the purposes of leaders, based on their own values and beliefs.

Historically, many leaders regarded as being great and effective were considered to have “evil” purposes; while some whose purposes are considered to have been “good,” achieved and maintained power in morally unacceptable ways – or were not good people to be around.

Historically, political theorists have been far more interested in the question of how to control the proclivities of bad leaders than in the question of how to promote the virtues of good ones. Influenced by religious traditions that focused on good and evil, and often personally scarred by war and disorder, the best political thinkers have had a rather jaundiced view of human nature.⁶

We suggest that effective leadership tools and techniques are morally neutral and are best considered separately from assessing morality – which involves subjective judgments about the ends sought. This is discussed further in the concluding chapter of this book.

Advice from the Ancients

The conflation of leadership techniques with “morally good” leadership has a long history. Many ancient philosophers believed leaders should be “virtuous” in what they aspired to achieve and did not see the tools and techniques of leadership as distinct from the purposes to which they were directed.

Confuciusⁱ advised rulers to be “benevolent” and “virtuous”:

He who rules by virtue is like the polestar, which remains unmoving in its mansion while all the others revolve respectfully around it.⁷

When asked how rulers should rule, Confucius replied:

Approach them with dignity and they will be respectful. Be yourself a good son and a kind father and they will be loyal. Raise the good and train the incompetent, and they will be zealous.⁸

Lao Tzu,ⁱⁱ Confucius’ contemporary, recognized there were bad leaders as well as good ones, but still did not separate the means and ends of leadership. He said:

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, “We did this ourselves.”⁹

Platoⁱⁱⁱ writing in The Republic, 100 years after Confucius and Lao Tzu, also conflated “morally good” and “effective” leadership but partially addressed the context of leadership. He set out four leadership contexts, each driven by a different virtue, shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1:Plato’s Four Leadership Contexts.

Leadership Context	Aspect of the Soul Involved	Driving Force	Virtues Needed
Philosopher Kings	Logos (Reason)	Philosophy: Love of learning	Wisdom: Knowledge of what is best for each part as well as the whole
Guardians	Thymos (Emotion)	Love of honor, victory, and reputation	Courage: Preservation of true beliefs about pain, pleasure, and fear
Harmony between philosopher kings, guardians, and producers	Eros (Material Desires) and Thymos working in harmony with Logos	Love of money and all the things it buys to satisfy appetites	Temperance: All agree to follow the better part over the interest of the worse part
The entire soul follows the philosophic part, with each doing its own part and enjoying its own pleasures	Each of the three groups working on achieving their own ends, without meddling	Subordination to Logos: All parts doing their own work and not overthrowing Logos	Justice: The power of each part doing its own specialized work

Source: Based on Bauman, D. C. (2018), “Plato on Virtuous Leadership: An Ancient Model for Modern Business,” Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp. 251–274, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/plato-on-virtuous-leadership-an-ancient-model-for-modern-business/06C603D9B188138E321BE8249AA55A08/core-reader, accessed on April 24, 2020.

Plato went on to describe five types of leader, shown in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2:Plato’s Five Types of Leader.

Type of Leader	Dominant Soul Part	Dominant Virtues	Ultimate Purpose
Philosopher	Logos (Reason)	Wisdom	Seeking truth/living a good and fine life
Timocratic	Thymos (Emotion)	Courage	Honor and victory
Oligarchic	Eros (Material Desires) with some Thymos	Temperance limited by courage	Wealth and making money
Democratic	Eros with limits on lawless desires	Limited temperance	Freedom with few limits
Tyrant	Eros without limits on lawless desires	None	Power and satisfying lusts

Source: Based on Bauman, D. C. (2018), “Plato on Virtuous Leadership: An Ancient Model for Modern Business,” Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp.251–274, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/plato-on-virtuous-leadership-an-ancient-model-for-modern-business/06C603D9B188138E321BE8249AA55A08/core-reader, accessed on April 24, 2020.

Plato conflates “effective” and “morally good”; but differs from Confucius and Lao Tzu by recognizing five types of ruler, suitable for different political contexts, with different purpos...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part 1: Lessons from History
• Part 2: Leadership is Managerial
• Part 3: “Leadership Techniques”
• Index