Understanding 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 article on leadership in The New Yorker describes the trends of leadership interpretation in American society and what we can learn from those trends. Understanding those trends is important to consider how to assess are our own 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 when starting to think about today’s leadership trends is how to relate to these trends to our workplace through understanding the context of other’s 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 as how one can best determine what makes life worthwhile and how that relates to our own leadership practices. While listening, notice how his thoughts refer to the importance of ethical value determination as a key influence in conceptualizing how to align one’s life with one’s passion and work.

Legacy Connects to Influence

According to John Maxwell and Jim Dornan, there is inherent value to 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 important leadership competencies towards 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 found in the every day strategies that leaders can use which are based in the ten characteristics listed above. A person becomes influential when they possesses integrity, nurture relationships with others, has faith in other people, demonstrates real conviction in their words and actions on a daily basis, listens to others, understands where others are coming from, mentors others through unique care, navigates individuals by centering themselves on those individuals, connects 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 which focus 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 if you want to make an impact, you will have to become a person who 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, proper principles and ethical decision-making must incorporate the element of humbleness, authenticity, compromise, and legacy; all important 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 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 end 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 to be most paramount as King iterates his vision for a more just society? What values does King refer to that we could safely say are important to consider in determining effective, ethical leadership as we think about the importance of perspective, legacy and credibility?

The important value of credibility can also be seen in the very famous text The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner.   This belief is reinforced in the chapter called “Credibility is the foundation of leadership.”  Without credibility, they believe, that 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 consistency of word and deed can cause stress for people leading to several negative outcomes that influence the ethical climate.  Credibility can be most accurately divided into two core moral values that are 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 at 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 require perspective and legacy in order 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 strong 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 and the widened understanding and identification with the overall structure and process of the collective entity itself,
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, there are also indicators that speak to the leadership struggles that might ensue as a result of honesty and effective 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 serious thinking about “moving on” usually coupled with conversations that are artificially good but are merely covering a negative 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 who are being lead.
5. If credibility is not addressed through the lens of perspective and legacy, problems will emerge and destroy any ability the leader might have in any other categories or areas. Credibility is very important.

May’s Suggestions for Organizations

How do we create an organization that is ethically based on the important 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 so that a clarity of values is reached for the individual and organization.
2. Every organization should be encouraged to create honest, open and clear dialogue or communication.
3. Ethical values in an institution should work towards a system-wide decision-making model that encourages participation of as many individuals as possible.
4. All policies, regulations and guidelines should be straightforward and transparent; a special emphasis should be given to foster clear understanding for all without hidden loop holes 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 their attempt to seek out true wisdom and trained to think critically and carefully in order identify and resolve ethical problems that will emerge.

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

Shaping a Proper Attitude

What if these strategies fail? One of widely discussed ethical obstacle 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 own self perceptions and the situations of which we might be confronted by being honest about our and other’s attitudes. The importance of being self-aware of our attitude and the situations that foster others positive attitude, as it is important to determine effective ethical leadership.

Maxwell analyzed as to why employers dismissed their employees. In looking at the data, Maxwell hypothesizes that the underlying reason of these problems stemmed from a poor attitudinal institutional environment. Poor attitudes are most often associated with the employee but may be resolved with a greater awareness of what causes such outcomes by leaders. Maxwell asserts that the importance of helping others to create a more positive or productive attitude is representative of a leader’s understanding of the perspective, legacy, and credibility factors. Maxwell’s research are 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 could have been off-set by more insightful ethical leadership practices.

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 written 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 the leader must carefully gauge their own predisposition and to 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 make a conscious decision to 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 the easy. It requires self-reflection and the willingness to hold one’s self responsible to move forward with change despite of potential obstacles.

Rachels’ Theory of “Morality Without Hubris”

The fact is that ethical leadership is hard and requires a great deal from the leader. What is most frustrating is not having a vision for required improvement. The complexity behind this is not simply determined by the organization or the leader. The factors of leadership strain are increasing around the world 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 negative 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 in the midst of this potential strain. Dr. James Rachels (2019) The Element of Moral Philosophy, has written a series of articles and texts on how to think critically while weighing the factors that are at the heart of important moral philosophical viewpoints.

What I like about his work is that it applies directly to “real life” scenarios we face. His work has a sense of sincerity found in the belief that employing wisdom and making the right decision, is much harder 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 that he has named the strategy of MWH. Rachels suggests that one way to begin to further this conversation can be found in his own 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 one’s self. Many years ago, I gave a graduation speech that echoed this viewpoint. I titled it “Getting Out of Our Own Way”. In it, I argued that our society has the ability to do amazing things but often what holds all of us back 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 serious 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 then follow through on a viewpoint that is 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’s 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 who are committed to leading through humbleness. 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 hold the consideration of basic social elements of living as most important. Issues of life and death, serious 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 is important for leaders to 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 are acting in accordance with proper moral principles.

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

By making the conscious decision to weigh important elements, we become empowered in knowing that we are moving forward with decisions that far outweigh our own 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 within ourselves is the first step forward to change 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 found in the cultivation of 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 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 that is discussed at length 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 own unique needs and not merely from the standpoint of reciprocity or as we would like to be treated.

Fairness not just about equality, but the ability to tailor needs with an understanding and expectation of what people deserve. This complexity is a much harder 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 equal process.

The Importance of Diminishing your Ego

Rachels’ assessments have had a significant impact on how morality, decision-making and fairness have been studied and interpreted. Listen to Bob Davids discuss how to decrease one’s ego in order to be able to meet daunting ethical goals. Notice what Davids describes as the key characteristics or behaviors that we need to exhibit in 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, as well as our ability to be honest with ourselves—failures and successes. Often in discussing morality, leadership and the process of good 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 be effective in carrying them out. As a result, we might interpret our inability as 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 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 often society misinterprets or misjudges the success of such theories as unrealistic because leaders don’t understand the outcomes or judge their successes and failures on indicators that are intangible, or don’t return immediate results. Rather, 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 simply based on the perceived end 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, clear, and profitable outcome.

The theory of “moral sainthood”, states that we must accept and understand that “good” decision-making and leadership, requires the acceptance of imperfection. In that imperfection, we find the true concept of “moral sainthood”; namely that part 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 as well as in the our failure to attain these moral ideals. Knowing this, we are forced to focus on others and see circumstances and situations for what they really 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 clearer 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 to use these failures to prompt greater ethical change.

To do this effectively, honestly, and with the genuineness that is demanded for proper leadership, we must be seen in the light of our failures and successes as an authentic leader. It is in those successes and failures, that we become devoted to the welfare of others, as they can relate to us. Leaders must reevaluate the definition of what is proper leadership and decision-making so that it reflects the concept of a 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 true leadership and good decision-making. Thus, Wolf’s concept of “moral sainthood” incorporates the leaders commitment to engage in 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 real 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 own 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 requires all of us to overcome significant obstacles. To face down these obstacles, it is important to consider the mindset that a strong thinker must have to move on. Aimee Mullins discusses from her powerful story how we can turn obstacles into opportunities for success. She reminds us that adversity can present us with the opportunity to do incredible things—even when that success may not be easily attained.

Creating an Ethical Atmosphere in Any Situation

In thinking through the value of overcoming obstacles and acknowledging that the process of instituting true beneficial ethical change may be slow, it is also imperative to create the right understanding of how to best 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 the ability to find “middle ground” between factions or interests. Though it is clear that there is no decision that will be equal in its end result or outcome, Parfit’s statements on effective compromise are useful to help all of to understand how to weigh realistic outcomes with theoretical guiding moral principles or ideals. Parfit (1986) argues Reasons and Persons that the ultimate compromise 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 simply 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, embed 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 is 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 find the ability to continue upholding the values that are required over a long period of time. 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 process in order to attain the desired end result. Thus, leaders must be able to take a situation and weigh its moral consequences in reference to 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 that we come in contact with.

• First, thinkers need to be conscious of others’ feelings and take into consideration their own motivations and benefits. This is easier said than done. It requires that we continually evaluate people and their interest while determining with limited knowledge, what is central to who they are and what they believe to be true.
• Second, we must possess the ability to compare and contrast various viewpoints clearly and rank various arguments and perspectives in relative terms. True critical thinkers have to be able to think comprehensively and weigh carefully the arguments being made.
• Third, one must be “real” with those who are involved. This is not a factor for 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, in order to create greater moral awareness and therefore more constructive and good outcomes from solid decision-making, a thinker must create a 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 best accomplish the goal 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 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.

There are a couple of deductions that can be made in reference to these five suggestions that I think make a difference. All of them demand that the leader scrutinize as many options as possible and balance logic with emotion. Clearly, there are times to consider the important contribution that emotion may have in 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 important factual knowledge and detract from the task at hand. 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 own bias 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 good decision-making and the concept of action. Too often, leaders come up with great 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 the decision that they think will require less action and/or effort on their part. They opt for the decision of less resistance.

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

In conclusion, and as we assess our own individual leadership strengths and weaknesses, it is important to take the various theories and tailor them to “real life” learning and the leadership scenerios that one is confronted with in everyday situations.  When considering these theories and perspectives, we find ourselves evaluating 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 by definition is not the accumulation of information, as information alone, does not equal good decision-making or minimize all tendency to make a mistake.  All of these suggestions have the underlying theme that true wisdom is the core when determining how to best uphold these values; values that are so important to successful thinking.  As a leader in a democratic society where we all shoulder this responsibility by definition, it is imperative that we acknowledge and refine good critical thinking skills while recommitting ourselves to the task of taking more time to think about important decisions.  This will allow us to adequately weigh more effectively the possible outcomes of such decisions.  We can do this by being more aware of how we learn, evaluating the importance of objective and subjective thinking, and more effectively employing, in a balanced framework, reason and emotion, 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 move towards constructing a better ethical viewpoint that incorporates consideration for community and family as well as 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 todays 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