The success of any organisation, small or big, largely depends on its leaders. There are leaders who have transformed organisations even from the brink through their innovative leadership skills which are founded strongly on ethical principles. On the contrary, organisations have also died owing to a lack of such skills in leaders. A crucial factor that usually plays a decisive role in determining the destiny of organisations is also the type of leadership practised in them.
But again, with a multitude of leadership styles available, choosing the appropriate type that may best be suitable to the organisation becomes tricky. This task has become even tougher in contemporary times as newer forms of leadership continue to emerge periodically.
In the past, the ones that held sway in many leadership seminars and conferences were the following types: transformational, steward and servant. Today, seldom do we hear these terms. Instead, we get to hear increasingly of newly evolved styles such as coaching, lean, and resonant leadership.
In fact, there is a steady influx of newer forms and styles of leadership into the body of knowledge, which never ceases to keep the leaders including the aspiring ones constantly engaged and on tenterhooks at the same time.
However, the question that looms large is how different are the new ones from the old? A close examination would reveal that all types of leadership have shared attributes, the difference being that each of them prioritises a few specific characteristics over others. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to issues faced at any organisation.
A mature leader hence would choose a model or a combination of models after having done a thorough analysis of the prevailing conditions at the workplace along with keeping the organisation’s aims, objectives and philosophy in mind.
In general, almost all styles of leadership include ethical principles. So, would focusing on ethics help leaders choose the right model? Perhaps! But, sadly, in many organisations non-ethical or even unethical factors tend to override ethical considerations. The Covid pandemic has further accentuated this undesirable trend.
Such situations arise because often organisations fail to practise what they preach. The vision and mission statements are lofty but remain so only on paper. As a result, market demands dominate. Often, the reason cited by institutions for this lacuna, particularly the private ones, is a lack of funds or/and support from the government. There’s an element of truth in it because successive governments have been vigorously encouraging privatisation. As a result, over the last few decades, governments have drastically reduced funding to public and private institutions forcing them to fend for themselves.
All the same, the question is, aren’t academic leaders obligated to society and therefore shouldn’t they seriously evaluate the negative consequences of assigning undue emphasis on monetary factors? Sadly, even experienced academic heads have failed here, not having understood why the completely market-driven model is totally antithetical to the idea of education itself.
Ethics, the binding force
It is in such context ethics must be put to good use. Ethics is the binding force that helps all communities and societies to run well. For educational institutions, in particular, ethics should serve as a beacon that defines the institutional philosophy, determining the future course of action.
Leaders in general, and especially academic leaders cannot be indifferent to moral responsibility. As a matter of fact, they must go beyond symbolism and verbal rhetoric to actually establish systems that effectively foster ethical leadership in their institutions.
So, what type of ethics may be suitable for an educational institution? Deontological ethics propagated by Immanuel Kant or the teleological advocated by Plato and Aristotle? In my view, both are significant. Deontological ethics lays its primacy on duty and obligation, aspects crucial to education.
Staying grounded
Results don’t matter as long as one fulfils their duties, whereas teleological ethics insists on the importance of goals and results of actions. The prime motive of the leaders of the first type is the display of genuine altruism, and concern for others even at the cost of personal sacrifices. Teleology, on the other hand, places emphasis on reciprocity: there is importance on the Self as well as the Other. All of these characteristics are central to academic engagements.
So, a judicious blend of the two types may be beneficial to our leaders. The glue that binds an educational institution is the idea of interdependence. Recognising its value and appreciating symbiotic relationships will go a long way in establishing ethic-conscious campuses. The well-being of stakeholders is crucial for holistic development.
Academic leaders must therefore develop a sense of ethics that combines prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance-all important attributes of ethical leadership. Most importantly, they must often engage in self-criticality. This will help them stay grounded and yet surmount all obstacles even in times of extreme adversities.
(The writer is the dean of Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru)