This week’s MSLD 634
blog is about a topic that strikes near my core, and that is a disdain for
leaders that have a personal power orientation that is dominate to the point of
smothering out any social power orientation that may be lurking inside their
soul.
We all have been exposed
to the leaders that will stop at nothing to serve their personal agendas. Over
the course of the MSLD program, my opinions about personal power and social
power orientation have been well documented. This blog provides an opportunity
to highlight them concisely, with more precision, and with support from
numerous thought leaders. In particular Roderick Kramer, who is the author of
the article The Harder They Fall that
provides the central theme in this blog.
Three Stages of Ethical / Moral Development
In our society, most children
are raised with a good set of ethical / moral standards. This is also known as
the common do’s and don’ts in life that define Kohlberg’s pre-conventional
level of ethics (Velasquez, 2010). According to Velasquez, Kohlberg also
suggests that some of us evolve from the pre-conventional stage to a
conventional stage, where norms of groups that we associate with are adopted as
our own. Yes, that sure makes a lot of sense in my mind. We tend to hang out
with the people that share similar views…at least to some extent.
Where the assertions in Velasquez (2010) assertions on ethical and
moral development becomes uncertain and a bit presumptuous is in this statement
But if a person continues to develop morally, he or she will reach
what Kohlberg labeled the post conventional level. The person at the post-conventional
level stops defining right and wrong in terms of group loyalties or norms. Instead,
the adult at this level develops moral principles that define right and wrong
from a universal point of view.
While buying into this line of reasoning seems logical
and a sense of agreement within me is present, empirical evidence is required
for me to accept the assertion wholly. What is to say that one would continue
to develop in their ethical beliefs and behaviors along the lines of relativism
instead of universalism? Seems like a stretch to decisively conclude that someone
would choose to continue development or morality and ethics along the lines of
universalism. What is important is that framing moral / ethical thinking
development is helpful when understanding the cases of leader derailment presented
by Kramer (2003) as will be demonstrated.
Success Leads to Temptation and Discarding Moral Values
The Kramer article is wrought with example after example
of leaders, like you and me, that are hard-working, goal orientated people who
rise to the top only to succumb to the pressure of personal desire. The
following from Kramer (2003) shows that his line of thinking is makes a direct connection
with personal power.
Stories like Peel’s illustrate what I like to
call the genius-to-folly syndrome – a swift and steady rise by a brilliant,
hard-driving, politically adept individual followed by surprising stints of miscalculation
or recklessness…I have found that there is something about the pursuit of power
that often changes people in profound ways. Indeed, to get to the apex of their
profession, individuals are often forced to jettison certain attitudes and
behaviors-the same attitudes they need for survival once they get to the top.
(p. 60).
There are many more such examples that allude to “the pursuit of
power” being the catalyst that ultimately alters their will power to resist the
temptations that power provides. A closer zoomed in look at the type of power
that is being chased is critical in understanding how to recognize the traits
that make the genius-to-folly syndrome more likely for some and not others. Boyatzis
is a well-known and respected thought leader and one of my favorite nuggets about
power orientation originated from him “A strong need for power is desirable,
but a manager’s effectiveness also depends on how this needs finds expression.
The empirical research indicates that a socialized power orientation is more
likely to result in effective leadership than a personalized power orientation (Boyatzis,
as cited by Yukl, 2013, p. 142).
Why is it that power orientation is important in determining the
likely hood of success in a manager? “Managers with a personalized power
orientation use power to aggrandize themselves and satisfy their strong need
for esteem and status” (Yukl, 2013, p. 142). Having been a professional since
the age of 17 (enlisted as an avionics technician in the AF 35 years ago) these
eyes and ears have processed a lot of data on leadership characteristics and
this text from Yukl rings of truth.
Combine this text with Boyatzis’s assertions and the findings of
Kramer (2003), and a very clear picture of a path to CEO destruction comes into
focus. If a leader has a strong personal power orientation and they are willing
to compromise their ethical standards more than just a little, they are headed
for a path of a destruction “They are ruder to other people, they drink too
much, they try to exploit others sexually, and they collect symbols of personal
prestige such as fancy cars or big offices” (McClelleand & Burnham, as
cited by Yukl, 2016, p. 142). Any of this sound familiar from Kramer (2003)?
She became more
demanding of her subordinates and devoted little time to mentoring them. To
everyone’s surprise, she divorced her husband of 15 years and began dating a
younger employee. Her previously conservative tastes and modest habits went out
the window; she was spending lavishly on a new wardrobe and new furnishing for
her office. (p. 60).
What makes me think someone with a socialized power orientation
would be able to avoid the pitfalls that presumably people with a personal
power orientation fall victim to? Because they stay grounded in that they have
more of a propensity to stick with the morals from their childhood, teenage
years and as young adults “Take it from Warren Buffett. When asked how he
learned to handle his enormous power and wealth, he said, I live now the way I
lived 30 years ago.” (Kramer, 2003, p. 64).
Give me a leader with a socialized power orientation over a
personal power orientation all day, every day. One reason why MSLD 634,
Resonant Leadership, connected with me so well is that in order to be truly
resonant and connect with people you need to be in a socialized power
orientation frame of mind.
Motivation and
inspiration energize people, not by pushing them in the right direction as
control mechanisms do but by satisfying basic human needs for achievement, a
sense of belonging, recognition, self-esteem, a feeling of control over one's
life, and the ability to live up to one's ideals. Such feelings touch us deeply
and elicit a powerful response. (Avramenko, 2014, para. 17).
Avramenko (2014), states what it takes to stay grounded and
cognizant of these three principles: mindfulness, hope and compassion. These
are all traits of a leader who is able to keep their strength and not give up
their moral and ethical principles against the pressures of being on top.
Renewal keeps a leader’s strength and mindfulness, hope, and compassion are the
keys to renewal (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005, p. 8). After reading Kramer (2003),
and all of the material in MSLD 643 and now MSLD 634, there is no doubt in my
mind that our ethical and moral development and its protection in the leadership
world, hinges on a social orientation and the principles of resonant leadership’s
concept of renewal.
References:
Avramenko, A. (2014).
Inspiration at work: Is it an oxymoron? Baltic
Journal of Management, 9(1), 113-130.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1108/BJM-07-2013-0110
Boyatzis, R., &
McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership:
Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and
compassion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kramer, R. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Velasquez, M. (2010).
Can ethics be taught? Marcula Center for
Applied Ethics: Santa Clara University. Retrieved from https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/taught.html.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Boston MA:
Pearson.
