 |
Organizations look up to leaders for guidance and support, expecting them to lead members or constituents to greatness by encouraging each one to be at his best.
But what if the leaders' integrity and ethics are being questioned and perceived to be leaning toward the interest of a few, if not only one person?
Honesty is said to be a leader's most valuable and most valued leadership quality as it serves as the gateway for trust and inspiration.
But what if the leader is not honest? A leader may be soft-spoken and may always promote "Honesty, Integrity, Respect, Good Governance, Ethics, etc. in every meeting but in practice may fall short by knowingly or unknowingly deceiving members through acts the opposite of what is being promoted. This then becomes a great concern of leadership.
Such leader's motives may not be within perception of newer members as there may be some issues that these new members may not be aware of. But because of powers naturally ingrained with leadership, some members or constituents looking up highly to leaders take everything that these leaders say -- hook, line and sinker, even if they know some decisions are to the detriment and exclusion of even main players in an important issue. This is dangerous in the guise of honesty, ethics, good governance, and integrity because the demarcation line between right and wrong is lost.
But what if the leader is not honest? A leader may be soft-spoken and may always promote "Honesty, Integrity, Respect, Good Governance, Ethics, etc. in every meeting but in practice may fall short by knowingly or unknowingly deceiving members through acts the opposite of what is being promoted. This then becomes a great concern of leadership.
Such leader's motives may not be within perception of newer members as there may be some issues that these new members may not be aware of. But because of powers naturally ingrained with leadership, some members or constituents looking up highly to leaders take everything that these leaders say -- hook, line and sinker, even if they know some decisions are to the detriment and exclusion of even main players in an important issue. This is dangerous in the guise of honesty, ethics, good governance, and integrity because the demarcation line between right and wrong is lost.
It is incredibly important for leaders and those they lead, that they live according to their values. But what if the leader is not leading according to his or her values but what is dictated upon by some personalities whose interests are benefited from such leadership? Or is what he / she doing actually his/her own values?
At work, researchers have found correlations between perceived behavioural integrity and employee performance. Such apply to organizations and institutions. Leaders with high perceived behavioural integrity lead teams that are significantly more productive with high level of harmony, unity and general satisfaction. Therefore we are able to gauge the quality of leaders in whatever field in the disharmony, disunity, dissatisfaction among its sectors.
Nowadays we see leaders rely heavily on their mobile phones for seemingly instructions on what to do giving the impression that they are not the real ones running the show of the institution but someone else on the other end of the line. As if scripts are not enough!
How do we expect leaders to react in cases when there are questions raised in an issue? Do we expect such leaders to address it or just brush it aside? Avoidance is a clear sign of guilt therefore leaders must address such issues head on to display transparency. Walk the talk is the name of the game. Acknowledging an issue and explaining why such actions were done otherwise it will just prove that the guy on the other end of the line just asked the leader to flee -- adjourning the meeting, for example, is the easiest means of escape. No leader in his /her right mind must do this for it confirms the impression that the leader is indeed hiding something and not ready to answer and is now in panic mode.
Fleeing is not a quality of transparency nor honesty, integrity nor of good governance. Fleeing just confirms a leader is hiding something, up to something, or both. Furthermore, it fuels distrust not only among those the leader is committing abuse of authority of, but among neutrals. What is this leader going to do next? What will be the next instruction of the one running the show? The next moves moreso become even more suspicious, Especially when such leader is already committing violation of the institution's or organization's by-laws, for example.
Some of this leader's (or his/her boss) friends, being ethical themselves, known for having high moral values are sometimes forced to side with the dishonest leader because of affiliations of some sort. They choose to turn away their faces from the truth, all along in self-denial, convincing themselves that there will be "redemption' of some sort, someday.
The greatest challenge in leadership, and in life, is not honesty with others, but in being honest first, with ourselves, acknowledging where we have fallen short. We must search within ourselves if the sacrifice of our own values of honesty and integrity is all worth it. It is our choice what mark to leave in this world. If it is dishonesty, it is a leader's choice.
At work, researchers have found correlations between perceived behavioural integrity and employee performance. Such apply to organizations and institutions. Leaders with high perceived behavioural integrity lead teams that are significantly more productive with high level of harmony, unity and general satisfaction. Therefore we are able to gauge the quality of leaders in whatever field in the disharmony, disunity, dissatisfaction among its sectors.
Nowadays we see leaders rely heavily on their mobile phones for seemingly instructions on what to do giving the impression that they are not the real ones running the show of the institution but someone else on the other end of the line. As if scripts are not enough!
How do we expect leaders to react in cases when there are questions raised in an issue? Do we expect such leaders to address it or just brush it aside? Avoidance is a clear sign of guilt therefore leaders must address such issues head on to display transparency. Walk the talk is the name of the game. Acknowledging an issue and explaining why such actions were done otherwise it will just prove that the guy on the other end of the line just asked the leader to flee -- adjourning the meeting, for example, is the easiest means of escape. No leader in his /her right mind must do this for it confirms the impression that the leader is indeed hiding something and not ready to answer and is now in panic mode.
Fleeing is not a quality of transparency nor honesty, integrity nor of good governance. Fleeing just confirms a leader is hiding something, up to something, or both. Furthermore, it fuels distrust not only among those the leader is committing abuse of authority of, but among neutrals. What is this leader going to do next? What will be the next instruction of the one running the show? The next moves moreso become even more suspicious, Especially when such leader is already committing violation of the institution's or organization's by-laws, for example.
Some of this leader's (or his/her boss) friends, being ethical themselves, known for having high moral values are sometimes forced to side with the dishonest leader because of affiliations of some sort. They choose to turn away their faces from the truth, all along in self-denial, convincing themselves that there will be "redemption' of some sort, someday.
The greatest challenge in leadership, and in life, is not honesty with others, but in being honest first, with ourselves, acknowledging where we have fallen short. We must search within ourselves if the sacrifice of our own values of honesty and integrity is all worth it. It is our choice what mark to leave in this world. If it is dishonesty, it is a leader's choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave Us a Message