Understanding the Roots of Leadership

“A sense of perspective may be among the most critical leadership qualities.”
—Joshua Rothman

Which leadership values are important? To answer this question, we need greater insight into the history and context of leadership in Western society. Josh Rotherman’s leadership article in The New Yorker describes the leading trends in American culture and what we can learn from those trends. Understanding those trends is essential to consider how to assess our leadership development.

Rothman concludes his study of leadership analysis with the thought “a sense of perspective may be among the most critical leadership qualities.” Perhaps the best place to start thinking about today’s leadership trends is how to relate these trends to our work by understanding the context of others’ impressions and conceptions. At the heart of Rothman’s assessment is the belief that leaders need to carefully consider the impact of their leadership in a long-term sense. In this 16-minute video, listen to Conley’s thoughts on how one can best determine what makes life worthwhile and how that relates to our leadership practices. While listening, notice how his thoughts refer to the importance of ethical value determination as a critical influence in conceptualizing aligning one’s life with one’s passion and work.

Legacy Connects to Influence

According to John Maxwell and Jim Dornan, there is inherent value in considering the perspective and legacy to become a person of influence and to develop the core of ethical, visionary thinking to make a difference. In their work Becoming a Person of Influence, they argue that one must develop essential leadership competencies toward better ethical decision-making. Maxwell and Dornan contend that leadership success is directly comparable to the principles of good thinking and strong convictions. They argue that the key to success is the everyday strategies leaders can use, which are based on the ten characteristics listed above. A person becomes influential when they possess integrity, nurture relationships with others, have faith in other people, demonstrate absolute conviction in their words and actions daily, listen to others, understand where others are coming from, mentors others through exceptional care, navigate individuals by centering themselves on those individuals, connect with others by becoming authentic in their approach, empowers others by going out of the way to help and advocate for them and produces/fosters others who follow and make an ethical difference.

The Importance of Credibility

“The center of gravity for business loyalty–whether it be the loyalty of the customers, employees, investors, suppliers, or dealers–is the personal integrity of the senior leadership team and its ability to put its principles into practice.” 

Moral leadership leaves a legacy focusing on ten items (see box above) (Maxwell and Dornan, 2006). They write we don’t know exactly what your life dream is or the legacy you want to leave. But to make an impact, you must be capable of influencing others. There is no other way of effectively touching people’s lives. And if you become a person of influence, then maybe someday, when other people write down the names of those who made a difference in their lives, your name might be on it (Maxwell and Dornan, 2006). At their root, moral principles and ethical decision-making must incorporate the element of humbleness, authenticity, compromise, and legacy; all essential characteristics or factors to consider in assessing the place of leaders in society. Reichheld, in his article “Loyalty Rules: How Today’s Leaders Build Lasting Relationships,” makes this clear by writing it “is the personal integrity of the senior leadership team and its ability to put its principles into practice” (Reichheld, 2008) that determines how these values contribute to the result of credibility.

In watching Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech,” where do you see Maxwell and Dornan’s characteristics at work? Which component seems paramount as King iterates his vision for a more just society? What values does King refer to that we could safely say we are essential in determining effective, ethical leadership as we think about the importance of perspective, legacy, and credibility?

The critical value of credibility can also be seen in the famous text The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner.   This belief is reinforced in the chapter “Credibility is the foundation of leadership.”  Without credibility, they believe, one can not adequately lead any organization. People look for consistency between word and deed. In addition, confusion over what values are most important or character of word and deed can cause stress, leading to several adverse outcomes that influence the ethical climate. Credibility can be most accurately divided into two core moral values central to moral outcomes: honesty and visionary thinking.

Research by Kouzes and Posner confirms that credibility is based on the forward-thinking attitude or visionary projection that a leader reveals and oversees. To accomplish this, leaders must be competent. Fundamentally this is based on one’s honesty which mirrors their credibility. In determining effective leadership, there is no way to escape the connection between results, one’s track record, and the moral value of honesty. Without all of these elements, one’s leadership will suffer.

The Leadership Challenge

Creditability is the root of the five leadership practices central to ethical leadership in the Leadership Challenge.

1. Modeling the way,
2. Inspiring a shared vision,
3. Challenging the process,
4. Enabling others to act,
5. and Engaging the heart

These competencies require careful ethical thinking, with credibility at the core. They also need perspective and legacy to evolve. The success of this model was determined by indicators which Kouzes, and Posner studied and analyzed. Kouzes and Posner’s findings are revealing. In institutions with robust and credible leadership, they observed:

• employee organizational pride,
• an increasingly poignant sense of team spirit,
• identification with consistent personal values,
• an attachment and loyalty to the organization,
• the widened understanding and identification with the overall structure,
• and process of the collective entity, regardless of the member’s status.

All of these characteristics lead to more ethical and also productive organizations.

While effective leadership built upon credibility has concrete and productive outcomes, some indicators speak to the leadership struggles that might result from honesty and practical visionary thinking. Kouzes and Posner identified five categories in their research and studies.

1. Low credibility usually produces situations where people can not be trusted to do their job.
2. When credibility is missing, people become increasingly motivated by the most tangible of outcomes–money or the desire to vacate the situation as fast as possible.
3. A lack of credibility can also lead to increased severe thinking about “moving on,” usually coupled with conversations that are artificially good but are merely covering an adverse current of private discussion that is not productive or good.
4. Kouzes and Posner argue that institutions with low leadership credibility convey diminished levels of support and appreciation for those who are part of the organization, thus causing greater mistrust and indifference on the part of those being led.
5. If credibility is not addressed through the lens of perspective and legacy, problems will emerge and destroy the leader’s ability in any other categories or areas. Credibility is significant.

May’s Suggestions for Organizations

How do we create an organization that is ethically based on the essential values discussed so far? Steve May (2006) writes in Case Studies in Organizational Communication that leaders and organizations should base their moral evaluations on a six-part strategy to set expectations for better ethical evaluation.

1. May argues that people must work to align their personal and professional aspirations and behaviors to reach clarity of values for the individual and organization.
2. Organizations should be encouraged to create honest, open, transparent dialogue or communication.
3. Ethical values in an institution should work towards a system-wide decision-making model that encourages the participation of as many individuals as possible.
4. All policies, regulations, and guidelines should be straightforward and transparent; particular emphasis should be given to fostering clear understanding for all without hidden loopholes or discrepancies.
5. Rules, regulations, and guidelines should create and institute a form of accountability for those who are involved.
6. People must be courageous in seeking true wisdom and trained to think critically and carefully to identify and resolve ethical problems that will emerge.

Success found in these critical components will move an organization towards proper ethics and tremendous overall success in the long term. All of this works when an atmosphere of trust and thoughtfulness is encouraged by those in charge.

Shaping a Proper Attitude

What if these strategies fail? One of the widely discussed ethical obstacles is the problem of poor attitude which can quickly permeate an institution. John Maxwell (2007) writes in Ultimate Leadership that we need to be willing to evaluate our self-perceptions and the situations in which we might be confronted by being honest about our and others’ attitudes. The importance of being self-aware of our attitude and the situations that foster others’ positive attitudes is essential to determining effective, ethical leadership.

Maxwell analyzed why employers dismissed their employees. Looking at the data, Maxwell hypothesizes that the underlying reason for these problems stemmed from a poor attitudinal, institutional environment. Poor attitudes are often associated with the employee but may be resolved with a greater awareness of what causes such outcomes by leaders. Maxwell asserts that helping others create a more positive or productive attitude represents a leader’s understanding of the perspective, legacy, and credibility factors. Maxwell’s research is close to accurate; 85% of institutional problems, which leads to ineffective workplace outcomes or, in more severe cases, eventual “firings,” can be tied to a lack of productive attitude that more insightful ethical leadership practices could have offset.

Why employees are dismissed:

• Incompetence 30%,
• Inability to get along with others 17%,
• Lying 12%,
• Negative attitude 10%,
• Lack of motivation 7%,
• Refusal to follow instructions 7%

(Maxwell, 1998, p. 347)

The percentages above may not reveal a complete picture of institutional characteristics ultimately at play; the importance of keeping a positive attitude and creating an atmosphere where this approach is contagious can not be ignored. This assessment can be seen in the quotation listed above. Leadership requires that the leader see reality and be capable and willing to “adjust the sails” of the group or institution.

This “adjustment” often comes from the leader’s attitude. Maxwell argues that leaders must carefully gauge their predisposition and, be honest about where they are and what they are ultimately about. This might require an adjustment of perception or feelings. If an “adjustment” is needed, the leader should focus on change through the following four steps.

1. The leader must identify the problem feelings or perceptions that are apparent within one’s self and/or the institution.
2. The leader must consciously identify the behaviors that create the poor attitude.
3. It is the leader’s responsibility to identify the thinking or contextual circumstances that have produced such behaviors.
4. The leader is required to identify “better” thinking and then confirm this new path in a public commitment.

A leader’s commitment to “adjusting the sails” is not always easy. It requires self-reflection and self-responsible to move forward with change despite potential obstacles.

Rachels’ Theory of “Morality Without Hubris”

The fact is that ethical leadership is complex and requires a great deal from the leader. What is most frustrating is not having a vision for the required improvement. The organization or the leader does not simply determine the complexity behind this. The factors of leadership strain are increasing worldwide due to external moral issues or issues that do not simply focus on one organization and its internal workings. Such questions abound:

• How will we adequately address the potentially harmful outcomes of global issues that impact all work in any industry?
• How will we address the increasing strain of societal issues that create more difficult pressure on both individuals and institutions that complicate value determined necessary?

Rachels’ theory of Morality without Hubris (MWH) and the following theories can address this issue more precisely and help us realign our thoughts and strategies amid this potential strain. Dr. James Rachels (2019), The Element of Moral Philosophy, wrote a series of articles and texts on thinking critically while weighing the factors at the heart of critical moral philosophical viewpoints.

What I like about his work is that it applies directly to “real-life” scenarios. His work has a sense of sincerity in the belief that employing wisdom and making the right decision is much more complicated than it might initially seem but incredibly worthwhile if we focus on essential components. He highlights many key ethical components and ends his work with a theoretical proposal for good thinkers named the MWH strategy. Rachels suggests that one way to begin to further this conversation can be found in his practical approach. His theory of morality without hubris offers a good starting point.

In any leadership position, effective decision-making must include what Rachels believes to be the crucial element of success; the ability to look beyond oneself. Many years ago, I gave a graduation speech that echoed this viewpoint. I titled it “Getting Out of Our Way.” In it, I argued that our society can do amazing things, but often what keeps us from making better decisions is our inability to put aside aggrandizement, arrogance, and greed. We often cultivate these attributes when we focus on our needs and perspective without adequately giving severe consideration to others or our greater society. Rachels addresses this problem by arguing that the place to start with good, ethical thinking lies in the ability to “put ourselves more aside” and concentrate on five factors to institute the concept of “morality without hubris”.

1. We must be willing to cultivate and follow through on a viewpoint more sensitive to human nature. We must find a way to define and connect with those essential elements or ingredients that hold us together as people.
2. To be better thinkers, we must be willing to see ourselves in the context of greater values or concepts that transcend our perceptions or existence. To be truly humble, in the sense that Rachel argues, demands that we see ourselves as equals with others and to be motivated by this belief so that it dictates our daily decision-making. This requires respect for others, motivated by understanding the needs of others, and the conviction that our decisions will produce results that are in the best interest of all.
3. We must focus on impartiality. This is best defined in terms of justice. A better thinker understands that true justice is upheld by the decisions and actions of those committed to leading through humility. Using better critical thinking skills by balancing reason and emotion, one can move towards a more effective model of good decision-making by becoming more aware of what motivates people.
4. Careful thinkers must consider essential social elements of living as the most important. Issues of life and death, severe consequences of physical and emotional violence, and injustice must be addressed. All policies and/or decisions must not violate moral principles, have detrimental effects, or force individuals into compromising situations.
5. Rachels incorporates into his theory “morality with hubris,” an element of Nel Noddings’ care philosophy (Stanford University), which leaders must ponder. He argues that good leaders who make solid decisions develop and enhance the natural inclination of all to care on a local, societal, and global level and act per proper moral principles.

These factors produce productive results that can help us move along in solving problems. According to Rachels, when we consider these factors, we will find the freedom that overcomes obvious determined factors, regardless of our industry, position, or personal issues.

By consciously weighing essential elements, we become empowered in knowing that we are moving forward with decisions that far outweigh our inclinations or perceptions.

We gain greater awareness of how to become a “responsible moral agent” found in the values of fair treatment and respect for ourselves and others.

Creating greater awareness is the first step to changing ourselves and others. This is a never-ending process and therefore is not based on a result in and of itself. Instead, we must see the gained awareness as correlated with the enhancement of proper thinking skills in cultivating true wisdom.

In the process of greater awareness, experience, and the willingness to learn and be open with others, we also become more in tune with the promotion of the interest of all, whether that is focused on our families, our communities, our company, our industry, our society or our world.

This concept leads us to the underlying equation that is not tied to the “golden rule” but more geared towards true justice or the type of justice discussed by John Rawls of Harvard University. This approach to justice and good leadership dictates that individuals treat others as they deserve to be treated, according to their unique needs, and not merely from the standpoint of reciprocity or as we would like to be treated.

Fairness is not just about equality but the ability to tailor needs with an understanding and expectation of what people deserve. This complexity is a much more complex concept to incorporate into effective leadership as it requires authentic knowledge of those around you and the willingness, at times, to move beyond the simple “fairness as equal” interpretation that many supervisors or leaders employ. Often, in all reality, such an approach is the easiest way to avoid conflict as individuals can be interpreted to have been treated fairly by the equal process.

The Importance of Diminishing Your Ego

Rachels’ assessments have significantly impacted how morality, decision-making, and fairness have been studied and interpreted. Listen to Bob Davids discuss decreasing one’s ego to meet daunting ethical goals. Notice what Davids describes as the essential characteristics or behaviors we need to exhibit to avoid falling into the trap of becoming more and more self-centered.

The Theory of “Moral Sainthood”

A commitment to attitude change is directly connected to reducing arrogance or hubris, as we discussed before, and our ability to be honest with ourselves—failures and successes. Often in discussing morality, leadership, and the process of sound decision-making, we can be galvanized by our values and our plan we know is essential to a more ethical outcome. We can also be “defeated” in our inability to adequately use our plans or live up to “high expectations.” Though we must take the suggestions offered to heart, we must remember that we will not always effectively carry them out. As a result, we might interpret our inability as a failure and decide that moral decision-making theories, like Rachels’ theory, might be impractical or ineffective. Nothing could be more untrue.

Susan Wolf, a professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, argues that the perspective of failure should not determine our assessment of a dilemma’s moral success. Instead, Wolf writes that society often misinterprets or misjudges the success of such theories as unrealistic because leaders don’t understand the outcomes, judge their successes and failures on intangible indicators, or don’t return immediate results. Instead, imperfection, or the failure to see tangible outcomes or gain instant results, should not determine the assessment of a decision. Wolf argues that we can not judge the morality of decisions based on the perceived result alone because we live in an imperfect world of imperfect people. We are imperfect. Wolf says that we must be willing to fully understand this societal thinking pattern she labels “moral sainthood” or the concept that people who are moral or good decision-makers never make mistakes. The result of all “good” moral decisions does not always result in a productive, transparent, and profitable outcome.

The “moral sainthood” theory states that we must accept and understand that “good” decision-making and leadership require the acceptance of imperfection. In that imperfection, we find the genuine concept of “moral sainthood”; namely, understanding of moral sainthood can be found in the essence of imperfection. Wolf believes that our effectiveness is in adhering to the beliefs of moral ideals and in our failure to attain these moral ideals. Knowing this, we are forced to focus on others and see circumstances and situations for what they are. In short, the concept of the leadership ideal as a “Mother Theresa” figure or perfect “moral saint” is not healthy nor helpful.

Though Mother Theresa was an amazing individual, the untrue concept of success yields disturbing comparative disappointment in many people’s views of their own lives and situation; in this case, Wolf writes, the extraordinary feats of superb individuals and their legacy limits the drive for success of individuals, community, and society. This thinking can leave people feeling powerless and encourage an atmosphere of apathy or indifference; in some cases, this haplessness leads to a lack of responsibility in a world (or apathy). Wolf advocates for a more evident ideal of “moral sainthood.” She writes in her Freedom within Reason that we must find a way to be more realistic about our expectations and use these failures to prompt more significant ethical change.

To do this effectively, honestly, and with the genuineness demanded by proper leadership, we must be seen in the light of our failures and successes as authentic leaders. In those successes and failures, we become devoted to the welfare of others, as they can relate to us. Leaders must reevaluate the definition of proper leadership and decision-making to reflect greater interest than one person or a collective group. In imperfection, we make ourselves vulnerable, and it is through vulnerability that we gain trust and a proper understanding of authentic leadership and sound decision-making. Thus, Wolf’s “moral sainthood” concept incorporates the leader’s commitment to genuine and full-time devotion to this renewed definition. She writes, the moral point of view, we might say, is the point of view one takes up insofar as one takes the recognition of that fact that one is just one person among others–equally honest and deserving of the good things in life as a fact with practical consequences—seen in actions and deliberations (Wolfe, 1982).   Perhaps, as Wolf suggests, it is in genuine awareness of our daily struggle with our imperfections and the development of authentic connections with others that we become most effective in helping ourselves and others to move forward.

In considering the value of Wolf’s theory, we must address the fact that ethical progress and change require us to overcome significant obstacles. To face these obstacles, it is essential to consider the mindset that a strong thinker must have to move on. Aimee Mullins discusses in her powerful story how we can turn obstacles into opportunities for success. She reminds us that adversity prompts us to accomplish incredible things—even when that success is not easily attained.

Creating an Ethical Atmosphere in Any Situation

In thinking through the value of overcoming obstacles and acknowledging that instituting true beneficial, ethical change may be slow, it is also imperative to understand how to compromise when called upon. Combining Rachels’ concept of “morality without hubris,” Maxwell’s conception of “attitude adjustment,” and Wolf’s “authentic conception of moral sainthood,” we can then turn our attention to Derek Parfit’s suggestion of how to best focus on moving the progressive movement forward when the goal has not been grasped.

One essential element of good critical thinking must include finding a “middle ground” between factions or interests. Though it is clear that no decision will be equal in its result or outcome, Parfit’s statements on practical compromise help us understand how to weigh realistic outcomes with theoretical guiding moral principles or ideals. Parfit (1986) argues Reasons and Persons that the ultimate compromise is when thinkers must consider the compromise between desires and interests and those of others or higher ideals. Contrary to other theories that advocate that one must adopt the concept of higher ideals and adhere to them no matter what, Parfit writes that such models are too simplistic and self-defeating. He believes that our very nature, both biologically and psychologically, embeds us with the desire to advocate in some form or fashion for ourselves. This, he argues, is both good and bad.

A skillful thinker must learn to weigh the good elements of what he calls “self-interest” rather than “selfishness” against the concept of higher ideals, values, or virtues. What is most effective is the ability of everyone, including leaders, to weigh the inclination of self-interest against the conceptualization of others’ needs while balancing an element of objective Truth or principle. It is in the compromise of the subjective and objective that Truth can be found, and in that Truth, we can continue to uphold the values required over a long period. What should be most important to any moral leader is the understanding that the pursuit of Truth links itself with wisdom. Wisdom, for Parfit, incorporates the diligent and continual evaluation of compromise found in subjective and objective thinking and the willingness to adjust the process to attain the desired result. Thus, leaders must be able to take a situation and weigh its moral consequences for many different interests, including the interests of themselves.

This leads us to practical suggestions to create the proper atmosphere of expectation and progress with the people we contact.

• First, thinkers must be conscious of others’ feelings and consider their motivations and benefits. This is easier said than done. With limited knowledge, we must continually evaluate people and their interests while determining what is central to who they are and what they believe to be true.
• Second, we must be able to compare and contrast viewpoints clearly and rank various arguments and perspectives in relative terms. True critical thinkers must be able to think comprehensively and weigh the arguments being made carefully.
• Third, one must be “real” with those who are involved. This is not a factor that is focused on practice so that one can “pretend” to be concerned or “pretend” to listen; instead, it requires a leader to be devoted to actually spending the time to cultivate relationships so that trust can be reinforced and lines of communication can be opened for constructive feedback and even criticism.
• Last, to create greater moral awareness and, therefore, more constructive and good outcomes from solid decision-making, a thinker must create an ideal or vision of leadership. Progress is linked directly with “betterment” or moral improvement. Each one of these factors discussed above is critical to creating greater moral awareness, representing the beginning of a conversation that improves the personal, institutional, and societal situations that are so troubling.

Taking the awareness factors to heart, a good thinker can then evaluate how to accomplish the goal best to improve the ethical climate of their organization or circumstances. At the root of this is sound judgment. Sound judgment culminates in the following characteristics listed above:

1. the acknowledgment of assumptions,
2. the dissection of all moral points,
3. balancing of emotion and reason,
4. the weighing constructively of others’ interests and
5. the willingness on the part of the leader to act on his or her decisions.

All five are the basis of sound ethical judgments.

A couple of deductions can be made about these five suggestions that I think make a difference. They all demand that the leader scrutinizes as many options as possible and balance logic with emotion. There are times to consider emotion’s vital contribution to a particular decision-making process, but allowing emotion, like anger, to dominate or control a decision-making situation is dangerous. Emotion can blind one from essential factual knowledge and detract from the task. Second, there is also the issue of prejudice or bias. Thinkers need to be conscious of the individuals involved in the process. Leaders must attempt to decrease their biases and prejudices and focus on the well-being of all involved. Though it is impossible to do this with complete assuredness, it is a goal that is essential to work towards as it guides leaders to avoid arbitrary and stereotypical assessments.

The last suggestion focuses on sound decision-making and the concept of action. Too often, leaders come up with grand plans or ideas but fail in their ability to carry out the plans they have envisioned. Vision must produce action. This can be self-defeating and demonstrate poor judgment or an inability to accomplish goals. This is particularly true of moral situations. Too many people take the easy way out; they make decisions that they know may not be moral or constructive, as they are swayed by decisions that they think will require less action and/or effort. They opt for the decision of less resistance.

As a leader, one must realize that every decision has moral implications. Actions taken and actions not taken demonstrate what values or virtues one believes are essential. It is an often overlooked important aspect of building solid ethical thinking skills.

In conclusion, as we assess our leadership strengths and weaknesses, it is crucial to tailor leadership theories to “real life” learning and the leadership scenarios one is confronted with in everyday situations. When considering these theories and perspectives, we evaluate the importance of humbleness, authenticity, compromise, and legacy or influence in the context of the essential element that holds all of this together—namely, the character trait of wisdom. Wisdom is not the accumulation of information, as information alone does not equal good decision-making or minimize all tendencies to make a mistake. All of these suggestions have the underlying theme that true wisdom is the core when determining how to uphold best these values, which are important to successful thinking. As a leader in a democratic society where we all shoulder this responsibility, we must acknowledge and refine good critical thinking skills while recommitting ourselves to taking more time to think about important decisions. This will allow us to weigh the possible outcomes of such decisions adequately. We can do this by being more aware of how we learn, evaluating the importance of objective and subjective thinking, and more effectively employing reason and emotion in a balanced framework to further our genuine understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Taking all of these suggestions, whether from the more theoretical or practical realm, a thinker can construct a better ethical viewpoint that incorporates consideration for community and family and the various institutions or workplaces in which they live.

References

Conley, C. (2010, February). Measuring what makes life worthwhile. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/chip_conley_measuring_what_makes_life_worthwhile?language=en

Gokadze, I. (2013, August 28). Martin Luther King, Jr. I Have A Dream Speech. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDWWy4CMhE

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, J. C. (1998). Ultimate Leadership.

Maxwell, J. C. (2001). The winning attitude, Developing the leaders around you; Becoming a person of influence. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.

Maxwell, J. Dornan, J. (2006) Becoming a person of influence. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

May, S. (2006). Case studies in organizational communication. California: Sage.

Mullins, A. (2009, October). The opportunity of adversity. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_the_opportunity_of_adversity?language=en

Parfit, D. (1986). Reasons and Persons. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Reichheld, F. F. (2008). Loyalty rules!: How today’s leaders build lasting relationships. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Rothman, J. (2017, June 19). What Is Leadership, Anyway? Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/our-dangerous-leadership-obsession

Talks, T. (2012, April 10). The rarest commodity is leadership without ego: Bob Davids at TEDxESCP. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQrPVmcgJJk

Wolf, S. (1982, August). Moral Saints. The Journal of Philosophy. 79(8). 419-439