One of the most challenging attributes of leadership is balancing between principles and pragmatics. The two attributes are a contrast of each other, yet are both important to successful leadership. The main question thus is if it is actually possible to attain a perfect balance between principles and pragmatism, and when do principles override pragmatism and vice versa.
There are valuable lessons learnt from historical leaders, such as Thomas More, a fifteenth century British fictional moralist. Each of the lessons learned from Thomas Moreâs story shows that other than striving to seek a balance between pragmatism and principles, leaders ought to understand when to be principled and when pragmatism is the more appropriate approach to leadership.
This is attained through the use of a variety of techniques that enable leaders to achieve balance between pragmatic and principled leadership. Suffice to say that each of the two attributes to leadership separately plays an important role in leadership.
Despite the fact that people prefer to be led by morally upright pragmatic leaders, it is easier if leaders understood that it is almost a futile attempt to combine the two. Leaders can however be more effective if they understand when to be pragmatic and when to be principled. Choosing to be principled means that a leaderâs objective is to motivate and be inspirational to others.
As such this is how mentors are born. Mentors thrive on principles. This is due to the fact that people who are being mentored are attracted to principled mentors, rather than pragmatists, as unlike pragmatists, principled leaders are able to stick to given principles, an attribute that makes it hard to fault them. Other than in mentorship, being principled is also vital in parenthood.
Parents have to be fairly principled to effectively run stable homes. Principled parenting means that one is able to appeal to the senses of onesâ children. Parents who run the risk of being pragmatist are too nice to their children and as such may end up destroying their homes, rather than building them (Badaracco, 2006).
The relationship between pragmatism and principles has also been brought under spotlight t in military expeditions especially in war torn regions. Effective management of war time conflict means that the military has to decide when to be pragmatic and when to stick to war principles. This enables the military to deal with civilian as well as military issues effectively (Cordaid, 2006).
Modern day leaders have to learn when to be pragmatic or principled. They must also be able to make critical choices, between pragmatism of principles, according to their convictions and stick to those choices even under greatest duress. They also have to know that the choices they make will at times come to test. As such modern leaders have to learn that making such choices also comes with dire consequences.
While this is a valuable lesson, it has been exemplified in fictional characters rather than real life characters. A fifteenth century British icon of moral leadership, Thomas More exemplified this. Despite the fact that More was both a pragmatic and principled leader, he chose to live, and die by his conviction of principled leadership even when it meant going against the kingâs decree.
The result of Moreâs choice of principled leadership was his beheading. Moreâs choices and subsequent beheading is seen as one of the greatest sacrifices by a person in the history of England.
Thomas More was canonized and knighted posthumously and his values of principled leadership have remained an inspiration to many to date (Badaracco, 2006). This implies that modern day leaders have a mentor in Thomas More on principled leadership. Leaders must also learn that there are consequences that come along with making such choice.
Even though Moreâs story is a great inspiration on principled leadership, it does not mean that principled leadership overrides pragmatism. Thomas More life exemplified the values of principled leadership but More was also was an icon artful balance between principles and pragmatism, a situation that Guyatt (2003) refers to as the realism of pragmatists.
Ambitious Modern day leaders have to learn how to attain this through a variety of tactics such as humor, seeking to be understood and being dramatic. This implies that if modern day leaders acquire these skills they will become leaders for all seasons.
Furthermore, more approach of seeking artful balance is a reelection of how the world of leadership is a complex place. Despite the fact that Thomas More sacrificed pragmatism with tragic effects, for effective day to day leadership, understanding the using a little bit of principles and pragmatics, is more beneficial than choosing either.
It is thus impossible to attain a perfect balance between being a pragmatic leader and a principled leader. This is captured in Badaraccoâs question âHow well do I combine pragmatism and principlesâ.
The perspective of balance is altered by the use of the term well in this title. This implies that a perfect balance is almost impossible, but an artful balance can be attained through certain skills in what is referred to as achieving artful balance.
Reference List
Badaracco, J. (2006). Questions of character. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cordaid. (2006). Principles and pragmatism – Civil-military action in Afghanistan and Liberia. Web.
Guyatt, N. (2003). Another American century? The United States and the world since 9/11. London: Zed Books.