There is no more obvious dimension to observe the effects and depth of ethical values and standards than in the area of personal authenticity. The concept of authenticity rings with the elements of integrity and honesty. Much of the leadership literature today would affirm that a leader’s personal ethical framework will determine his/her long-range effectiveness in the workplace. For example, Worden (2003) asserts that integrity is a central determinant of trust.
Lamberton, Mihalek, and Smith (2005) conducted a study with 250 management accountants and financial managers about the ethical quality of the corporate leadership. This web-based survey concluded that corporations whose top management value ethics are less likely to pressure employees to materially alter financial results and therefore the tone at the top plays a critical role in the ethical environment of the organization.Verschoor (2006) reports a recent survey of over 1600 professionals who cited specific individuals as demonstrating effective leadership because they demonstrated entrepreneurship, had a solid set of core beliefs, worked diligently to achieve his/her goal, and exemplified a high level of personal integrity and tenacity.
Whetstone (2005) emphasizes that defining the mission or purpose of an organization is the first obligation for the senior management and that the corporate mission should be defined on the set of beliefs that the organization uses as a basis for all its policies and actions.Strategic integrity from a Christian perspective would interpret every decision as a kingdom decision (choices made with the priority of furthering God’s kingdom) reflecting the believer’s intentional commitment to be a kingdom person (Willard, 2002). A Christ-follower views God’s will as a suit to be worn, a spiritual skin to cover every part of man; a world-view that opens up and invites us to climb inside; the universal ethic to obey. Willard (2002) views this personal authenticity happening from the inside out asserting that inside change will explode into outward expression, but outward training alone never transforms the soul.
This perspective of strategic integrity, of kingdom thinking, of personal authenticity, of ethical leadership will serve a believer well in navigating through the maze of decision making. Personal authenticity involves a self-awareness and an understanding of one’s core values and mission. Our image or idea of who God is should totally shape our ideas and image of reality – it should be the filter that should interpret all of life.
My personal philosophy of ethics, whether it is in the area of personal authenticity, organizational culture or global leadership, finds its roots in the pages of scripture. There are four foundational passages that form the framework of my code of ethics. First is the Golden Rule, Jesus spoke these powerful words during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:12), “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you…” This one simple statement, if applied consistently would enable decision makers to see issues from the perspective of others. Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh (2003) inquire if our decisions would differ if we could make them wearing various identities not your own. They refer to John Rawls' concept of the "veil of ignorance," a technique that enables a person to ignore his/her position and situation while making a decision from another perspective. Jesus appears to advocate a simpler frame of mind. The Golden Rule forces an individual to not only see another’s perspective, but to evaluate what should be done as if you were the other person. As the decision maker, you should decide as if you are the recipient of the action.
The second building block passage is found in Luke 10:25-37, the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The parable of compassion, generosity and sacrifice ignored by the “righteous” but fulfilled by the cultural outcast says much about personal and multicultural ethics. The Samaritan gave of his money, time, and effort to help the needs of an unknown in trouble without expectation of reward or repayment. He interrupted the “business” of the day to meet the desperate needs of a stranger. Jesus said, “Go and do likewise” (v. 37).
Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount also contain the third foundation stone to a difficult ethic, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). Peter echoes this thought when he writes, “Do not repay evil for evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called” (1 Peter 3:9). Competition, winning, and even revenge are often the cornerstones of some organizations, but Jesus’ teaching flies in the face of the worldly view of success. The ethic of the servant leader needs to reflect an avoidance of the natural human tendency to hate the enemy and rejoice over their misfortune. This third stone is most difficult indeed.
My final ethical passage is picked from Galatians 5:22 which contains the fruit of the Spirit. This list of nine virtues (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) appears universally accepted as ethically pure and I believe that a leader or an organizational culture that adapts these standards will reflect an ethic that will transform the decision making process.
References
Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (un)ethical are you? [Electronic version]. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56-64.
Lamberton, Mihalek, and Smith (2005) conducted a study with 250 management accountants and financial managers about the ethical quality of the corporate leadership. This web-based survey concluded that corporations whose top management value ethics are less likely to pressure employees to materially alter financial results and therefore the tone at the top plays a critical role in the ethical environment of the organization.Verschoor (2006) reports a recent survey of over 1600 professionals who cited specific individuals as demonstrating effective leadership because they demonstrated entrepreneurship, had a solid set of core beliefs, worked diligently to achieve his/her goal, and exemplified a high level of personal integrity and tenacity.
Whetstone (2005) emphasizes that defining the mission or purpose of an organization is the first obligation for the senior management and that the corporate mission should be defined on the set of beliefs that the organization uses as a basis for all its policies and actions.Strategic integrity from a Christian perspective would interpret every decision as a kingdom decision (choices made with the priority of furthering God’s kingdom) reflecting the believer’s intentional commitment to be a kingdom person (Willard, 2002). A Christ-follower views God’s will as a suit to be worn, a spiritual skin to cover every part of man; a world-view that opens up and invites us to climb inside; the universal ethic to obey. Willard (2002) views this personal authenticity happening from the inside out asserting that inside change will explode into outward expression, but outward training alone never transforms the soul.
This perspective of strategic integrity, of kingdom thinking, of personal authenticity, of ethical leadership will serve a believer well in navigating through the maze of decision making. Personal authenticity involves a self-awareness and an understanding of one’s core values and mission. Our image or idea of who God is should totally shape our ideas and image of reality – it should be the filter that should interpret all of life.
My personal philosophy of ethics, whether it is in the area of personal authenticity, organizational culture or global leadership, finds its roots in the pages of scripture. There are four foundational passages that form the framework of my code of ethics. First is the Golden Rule, Jesus spoke these powerful words during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:12), “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you…” This one simple statement, if applied consistently would enable decision makers to see issues from the perspective of others. Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh (2003) inquire if our decisions would differ if we could make them wearing various identities not your own. They refer to John Rawls' concept of the "veil of ignorance," a technique that enables a person to ignore his/her position and situation while making a decision from another perspective. Jesus appears to advocate a simpler frame of mind. The Golden Rule forces an individual to not only see another’s perspective, but to evaluate what should be done as if you were the other person. As the decision maker, you should decide as if you are the recipient of the action.
The second building block passage is found in Luke 10:25-37, the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The parable of compassion, generosity and sacrifice ignored by the “righteous” but fulfilled by the cultural outcast says much about personal and multicultural ethics. The Samaritan gave of his money, time, and effort to help the needs of an unknown in trouble without expectation of reward or repayment. He interrupted the “business” of the day to meet the desperate needs of a stranger. Jesus said, “Go and do likewise” (v. 37).
Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount also contain the third foundation stone to a difficult ethic, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). Peter echoes this thought when he writes, “Do not repay evil for evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called” (1 Peter 3:9). Competition, winning, and even revenge are often the cornerstones of some organizations, but Jesus’ teaching flies in the face of the worldly view of success. The ethic of the servant leader needs to reflect an avoidance of the natural human tendency to hate the enemy and rejoice over their misfortune. This third stone is most difficult indeed.
My final ethical passage is picked from Galatians 5:22 which contains the fruit of the Spirit. This list of nine virtues (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) appears universally accepted as ethically pure and I believe that a leader or an organizational culture that adapts these standards will reflect an ethic that will transform the decision making process.
References
Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (un)ethical are you? [Electronic version]. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56-64.
Lamberton, B., Mihalek, P. H., & Smith, C. S. (2005). The tone at the top and ethical conduct connection [Electronic version]. Strategic Finance, 86(9), 37-39.
Verschoor, C. C. (2006). Strong ethics is a critical quality of leadership. Strategic Finance, 87(7), 19-20.
Whetstone, J. T. (2005). A framework for organizational virtue: the interrelationship of mission, culture and leadership [Electronic version]. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 367-378.
Willard, D. (2002). Renovation of the heart: Putting on the character of Christ. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
Worden, S. (2004). The role of integrity as a mediator in strategic leadership: A recipe for reputational capital [Electronic version]. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 31-44.
No comments:
Post a Comment