In her book, “The ethics of leadership”, Ciulla Joanne explores the question of personal morality. The case provides dilemma where characters find themselves at loggerheads when attempting to define morality. While some suppose that morality is a personal matter, its ambiguity of definition has prompted the question of validity. Ciulla (2003) talks of the moral framework through which individuals can address moral dilemma.
Are moral choices personal issues? On the one hand, the moral problem presented in the case is that an individual and leaders should be able to understand that the question of morality revolves around their ability to act in an ethical way rather than make decisions based on personal opinions, beliefs and values. On other hand, we see in the case study a situation where morality should be imposed upon individuals through pressure and other forms of social values and beliefs.
Failure of social institutions to intrude into personal affairs is in itself warranted since it fails to meet the threshold of morality. This brings about the debate about personal autonomy and personal morality. Besides, the question that the case study triggers entails the source, the purpose, the measure and the framework of morality.
While we consider that the source of morality is the social institutions and the structures that people live in, it becomes apparent therefore that the question of morality is relative and has invoked many perspectives since time immemorial.
Aristotle’s theory of virtue-based ethics dwells its argument on the premise that people should not focus on the actions they take but rather should be inspired by what they should become. Aristotle virtue ethics propose that individuals, leaders, groups and societies undertake actions with an objective of achieving a specific end. It implies therefore that all ends, which in reality are natural, ought to be good.
Nobody in the world has achieved his/her end and as such, all leaders should aspire to achieve the ends of their respective organizations (Bostock, 2000). In fact, the argument brought forth by Aristotle articulates that the only person that has achieved his end is God. Aristotle’s virtue based ethics therefore seek to argue on the need for identifying the human end. He says that all human beings struggle to achieve an ultimate end considering that some ends facilitate the achievement of others.
For instance, an employed individual works hard to achieve an ends of getting an income. The income helps an individual to achieve another end of food security and housing to mention but two ends. Hence, there must be the ultimate end that human race struggles to achieve. Bostock (2000) says that the eventual end is eudemonia or happiness that flourishes.
To that end, the actions that human beings undertake whether morally right or wrong should help them to get closer to flourishing happiness (Bostock, 2000). Societal morality does not guide an individual to act in a particular way but it is the ability of the individual to achieve what they define as eudemonia. This should happen through application of reason and rationality.
I tend to agree with Aristotle’s projection of the concept of morality entrenched in virtue based morality. The rationale is that the above case study illuminates on the issue of personal morality, which is dependent on an individual’s objective of achieving eudemonia. Whether or not the morality is a personal issue, it draws motivation from the need to achieve human end of happiness regardless of other people’s beliefs and opinions.
As leaders of organizations, the achievement of an end is to assist the organization to grow implying that action that they take are justifiable if the attainment of organizational goal is a reality. Hence, leaders are functions of an organization that should uphold high character for the sake of the organization.
In leadership, character is as important as the objectives of the organization. A leader whose character is not in line with objectives of an organization of increasing productivity is not applying virtue-based ethics. An organization acts as an individual who has the aim of enhancing performance and ensuring that he/she achieves the desired objectives (Ciulla, 2003).
Aristotle articulates that an individual ought to act guided by the excellent form assumed by his/her function (Bostock, 2000). For instance, for individuals to achieve their goals, it is imperative that their organs such eyes see excellently to heighten the chances of achieving the goal. Nonetheless, outside the context of the organization, there should be no judgment of the leaders based on their personal life.
In what they refer as the Bathsheba Syndrome, Ludwig and Longnecker say that success is in itself a precursor of failure. Leaders who achieve success develop other personality traits. These by-products of success include loss of focus, ability to control resources, power access and misplaced belief of their success.
All these results of success depend on individual character. Indeed, they pinpoint the Biblical story of David and Uriah where they analyze it saying that different leaders would have acted differently given the same situation (Ciulla, 2003). As such, effects of success are dependent on an individual.
References
Bostock, D. (2000). Aristotle’s Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ciulla, B. (2003).The Ethics of Leadership. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Thompson-Wadsworth Publishers.