Moral actions are those that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Whether it is moral leadership or moral followership, as it could be connected to the book’s Chapter 6, moral and societal goodness shall involve achieving the greatest amount of pleasure, and minimizing the greatest amount of pain, for the welfare of the society as a whole (Daft, 2002). This moral principle could also be linked to today’s current events and the war in Iraq. Killing Saddam would be completely moral because it would benefit the society as a whole.
A man as evil as Saddam should not be permitted to carry out his evil plans and therefore should, if the time comes, be killed with the appropriate measures and well-verified orders from whoever is fulfilling the leadership status. It may be not right to kill, however when society will benefit by the extinction of such an evil man, this might be a very valid exception. For the follower of this execution order, questions of moral ethics may surely confuse and agitate his personal principles.
For the follower with superlative sense of compliance and self-actualization to be a leader at some point, it may solely be a question of his followership (Daft, 2002). Hence, when leadership skills are shared by the leader and the subordinate, the latter is deemed developing outstanding followership and becomes a servant leader. To what extent their decisions and actions are decent demonstrates the potency of their moral leadership and moral followership.
Need essay sample on "Moral leadership"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $13.90/page
It is regrettable that while one could be a perfect servant leader having followed strict orders, he could also make a perfect criminal when the leader disowns the depraved orders (Kelley, 1992). In the post-Maslow, modern business context, Daft says that decision-making in business requires a more systematic process than decision-making in our personal life. The stakes are often much larger (Daft, 2002). An individual’s personal choices affect primarily his or her own life and those of a few others.
Business executives choose courses of action not only for themselves but also for their organization and other people (Ewing and Meissner, 2004). Bill Gates is the leadership model today, along with millions of entrepreneurs. The world is being run by the collective judgments and actions of individuals. Power has been deployed from the state to the individual, from vertical to horizontal, from hierarchy to networking. With the emphasis on what is tribal in a world increasingly global, the New Age mantra Think Globally, Act Locally is now: Think Locally, Act Globally (Ewing and Meissner, 2004).
It is definitely a challenge to be a leader, psychologically and even emotionally. As anyone who has ever been a part of one can attest, teams are cauldrons of bubbling emotions. We were often charged with reaching a consensus, hard enough with two people and much more difficult as the numbers increased. Even in some groupings with as few as four or five members, alliances formed and clashing agendas often were getting set (Daft, 2002). This paper therefore explores the employee orientation, consideration, or the maintenance of the group aspect of organizational leadership.
This coincides with the factors that pave the way to being people-centered, which may come down to two main dynamics: followership and democratic leadership. These two especially place premium on the specific individual need for self-actualization. As proven by Richard Daft’s seminal work, The Leadership Experience, it is really to note that the topic leadership has been explored by several scholars in more ways than one in an effort to extend our knowledge on this subjective concept and the most important aspect of organizational management especially the extent of its contingency across countries.
But an important aspect of the research on leadership is the way some scholars look at the concept in a different light, the one from the point of view of the humanistic needs.
Anderson, Donald F. , and Donna Pritchard Wasserman. (2001). “Choosing Leaders: A Group Interactional Approach. ” Journal of Leadership Studies. Blauner, Robert. (1999). “Worker Satisfaction and Industrial Trends. ” A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Cameron, Judy, and David Pierce. (2002). Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation: Resolving the Controversy. Bergin & Garvey.