Leadership
is a topic the is often accompanied with romanticized emotions that place
people who displayed an ability to influence in a position of admiration. Leadership
is simultaneously both a trait and an adjective that describe one’s ability to
influence option and motivate action in others. Leadership has been used for
good and for ill through the ages, but historians and other storytellers have preserved
a positive association with the label of leadership by assigning titles such as
tyrant, dictator and evil mastermind to leaders who have wielded their
influence to the detriment of society. This paper endeavors to show that the difference
between a good leader and a bad leader is the individuals strict adherence to a
personally rooted ethical code of conduct. We will first explore the intricacies
of leaders, then review two methods of evaluation of ethics and conclude with
an investigation of the ethical example of David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard
and one of the fathers of Silicon Valley.
Few modern-day scholars are as well versed in the intricacies
and nuances of leadership than Jim Collins. For five years Collin investigated
eleven companies who he determined had “shifted from good performance to great performance
– and sustained it” (Collins) . The purpose of his
research was to learn what and who were the catalysts for the great change. At
the center of these companies Collins discovered atypical leaders that shared a
core defining trait that seemed both counterintuitive and counterculture to the
model of leadership. Each of these “Level 5 Leaders”, as Collins describe them,
shared common traits that he summed to be “modest and willful, shy and fearless”;
a seemingly oxymoronical combination that amounted to focused leaders who did
not allow their own egos to inhibit the progress of their organizations.
Central to a leaders competency is their ability to
influence their organization. Great leaders who wield the most influence led
not by what they do, but who they are. Traits of fearless humility and willful
determination passed from leaders to organization became the pillars of culture
that enabled good companies to rise to greatness and sustain such greatness. One
common occurrence that Collins observed in the eleven transformational
companies that he studied was the creation of a culture of discipline by a
dedicated leader.
“When you look across the good-to-great transformation, they
consistently display three forms of discipline: disciplined people, disciplined
thought, and disciplined action. When you have disciplined people, you don’t need
hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy. When
you have disciplined action, you don’t need excessive controls. When you
combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the
magical alchemy of great performance” (Collins) .
This infusion of values from leader to organization is a critical
process in the good-to-great transformation that each budding leader envisions
as their best case scienario. The infusion of values from leader to
organization is inevitable because “senior leaders create… systems and structures,
and everyone looks to their behavior for guidance about how to behave” (Shriberg, Shriberg and Kumari) . The traits and
values that separated the subjects from Collins study and other less-influential
leaders were often bedded in a “significate life experience that... sparked development
of the seed” often these traits were rooted in “a strong religious belief or
conversion” that would “carryover… religious values to corporate life” (Collins) . The key to the infusion
of values was not necessarily bringing religious values into the corporate
world but rather introducing and maintaining ethical values with an unwavering
and religious conviction. Personally held values are important but “more
important than personal traits,… are visible behaviors” (Shriberg,
Shriberg and Kumari) . Visible dedication to personal ethical
convictions creat a disciplined culture that results in ethical conduct across
the organizations.
But how are leaders to judge actions and conduct to be
ethical and therefore important to diffuse throughout their organizations? Aristotle
is hailed as the father of the investigation of business ethics. He’s
prescribed rubric of ethical actions is an evaluation of how actions build
personal values and traits. For Aristotle, for one to be ethical is necessary
for them to “think of oneself as a member of the larger community, the Polis, and strive to excel, to bring out
what was best in ourselves and our shared enterprise. What is best in us—our virtues—are
in turn defined by the larger community, and there is therefore no ultimate split
of antagonism between individual self-interest and the greater public good” (Donaldson and Werhane) . Unfortunately, this
can be a difficult and fluid criterion to accurately determine the ethics of a leaders’
actions because the virtues are defined by the larger community. Depending on
which community the subject is in, different values may be deemed ethical and
no ultimate rubric can be determined. The larger community of Nazi Germany held
sacred much different values than the community of the Enlightenment era
Europe. Immanuel Kant, regarded as the originator of the deontological approach
to ethics, offers further clarification and classification of ethical conduct.
For Kant “the highest good was the good will. To act from a good will is to act
from duty. Thus, it is the intention behind an action rather than is consequences
that make that action good” (Donaldson and Werhane) . For Kant an ‘action
is only truly moral if it is morally motivated” and morally motivation actions “treat
the humanity in a person as an end and never as a means merely” (Donaldson and Werhane) . Great and ethical
leaders are those that infuse the value and high regard of humanity into their
organization and maintain that value through a disciplined and strict adherence
to prescribed ethical codes.
David Packard was one such ethical leader. In 1949 Packard
risked his career and reputation by rebuking a room full of powerful and greedy
businessmen when he stood and declared “A company has a greater responsibility
than making money for is stockholder… We have a responsibility to our employees
to recognize their dignity as human beings” (Collins, The 10 Greatest CEOs of All Time) . He lived this
sentiment by “shar(ing) equity and profits with all employees” (Collins, The
10 Greatest CEOs of All Time) . Packard infused
these humanity-promoting values into his company by creating and diffusing the exemplary
vision of an “HP man” which valued humanity over self. “He built a uniquely
dedicated culture that became a fierce competitive weapon” (Collins, The 10 Greatest CEOs of All Time) . Packard ethical practices
of promoting humanity extended far beyond his influence in the board room of
Hewlett-Packard. He and Jim Hewlett “both as individuals and in the corporate
sense,… established a tradition of philanthropy” (McNutt) .
For the remainder of his life David Packard lived in a small modest home and spent
his fortune sponsoring the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute (MBARI). The later having the mandate to take an unprecedented
approach to develop cutting-edge research and development in oceanography “in
the hope that his explorers will one day return with the great riches of human
betterment, which still lie beyond our present horizons” (McNutt) .
Beyond retirement Packard continued his tradition of promoting and valuing the
humanity of others at MRBARI.
“In the early days, the institute was small enough that each
employee felt like a member of Packard’s family. Packard never failed to let
the staff know how much he appreciated their efforts. There were invited on
hunting and fishing trips to properties held by Packard. He thus developed a
loyal and devoted following. His legend looms large at MBARI to this day” (McNutt) .
David Packard stands as a shining example of an ideal ethical
leader because his leadership was not defined by his actions but by his
character. Packard took a fierce and discipline approach “making ethics and
values an important part of (his) leadership agenda and proactively shaping the
firm’s ethical culture” (Shriberg, Shriberg and Kumari) and revered the
humanity of others. Choosing to place ethics and the humanity of others as
Packard did both within and beyond the corporate sphere is the determining
difference between leaders who are idolized and those who are rebranded as
tyrants and dictators by historians and story-tellers to protect the sacred
reputation of leadership.
Works Cited
Collins, Jim. "Level 5 Leadership." Harvard
Business Review (2001).
—. "The 10 Greatest CEOs of All Time." Fortune
(2003).
Donaldson, Thomas and Patricia H. Werhane. Ethical
Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach. 8th Edition. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson, 2008.
McNutt, Marcia. "How One Man Made a Difference:
David Packard." La Jolla: Scripps Instituion of Oceanography, 8 February
2000. Symposium Speech.
Shriberg, Arthur, David L. Shriberg and Richa Kumari.
"Ethical Leadership." Shriberg, Arthur, David L. Shriberg and Richa
Kumari. Practicing Leadership: Principles and Applications. n.d.
