It is quite possible that, other than treatises on history, more has been written about leadership than any other topic. Although this may be a difficult claim to measure, theories and issues of leadership abound and vigorously compete for attention. Analyses of leaders both past and present, along with meticulous studies of their personal qualities as well as strengths and weaknesses, are a constant staple that command attention far beyond academia to virtually every area of our lives: political, religious, social, and especially business. With so much having been said about it, one might get the impression that the subject has been exhausted, that the latest and most popular approaches are simply repackaging older, worn-out terminologies and biographies.
So why another book on leadership? The authors of this book go so far as to raise this question. It can be argued that so much attention is given to leadership because, competing theories and biographical examples notwithstanding, we still don’t really understand it. For Gini and Green, the answer to the question is more profound and enriching: studies of leadership have largely failed to appreciate the contributions that philosophy could make to the discipline, particularly the field of ethics. There is a need for moral philosophy to improve the quality and usefulness of leadership studies. The authors’ argument is relatively straightforward, yet provocative. Morality is foundational to leadership. Sound ethical judgment is one of its core components, not merely an option or an afterthought. Gini and Green support and defend a virtue ethics perspective that makes two contributions to current scholarship: first, their position proposes and affirms the concept of character and its relation to the qualities of a leader; and second, they focus on exemplary leaders and highlight the importance of considering real-life situations, imitation, and habituation.
One stimulating aspect of this argument is the authors’ assertion that leadership necessarily consists of a moral ingredient. The authors do not stand alone in making this claim. Other scholars have made a similar case. For example, in his book on leadership ethics, Terry Price (Reference Price2008) provides a rigorous Kantian examination of whether or not leaders have a responsibility to follow the same rules of conduct as others. Gini and Green, however, offer an exceptionally deep and rich alternative to this and other principled accounts of moral leadership by focusing on the application of significant Aristotelian concepts, like virtue and character, to the inherent qualities of a genuine leader. Their work raises a question as to what feature (or features) might separate a “genuine” leader from a “disingenuous” one. It is a problem about which the authors are keenly aware, and we will turn to their response momentarily.
The first task they set for themselves is to define “leadership.” Similar to the concept of justice, in many ways it is easier to say what leadership is not rather than what it is. It is not celebrity, notoriety or pop-culture icon status. The authors define leadership as offering a plan, asserting a purpose, and charting a course for meaningful action. For Gini and Green, it follows that “ethics defines leadership” (5). It is a necessary requirement for a flourishing life, not the life of this or that individual but for all of humanity. They assert, as management specialist Peter Drucker would affirm, that the purpose of organizational leadership is “to make the human condition more secure, more satisfactory, and more productive” (8).
This definition of leadership has direct implications for business. In Chapter 4 of their book, Gini and Green tease out what this understanding of ethical leadership suggests for judgment and action in the world of business. In the spirit of Charles Handy (Reference Handy2002), the authors explore a deeper question—“What’s a business for?”—and, in turn, what the outcome for all of us will be when the response is merely profit, shareholder value, and personal gain. Business is a communal activity, with broad consequences for society in terms of how people are treated. The nature of work, its meaning in our lives and how we relate to it, is also directly linked to how CEOs, managers, and bosses choose to lead their organizations and personnel. These leaders become the role models, the “exemplars” the authors refer to, who both define reality and set the tone for an organization’s culture. Naturally, there are both positive and negative examples, particularly in the context of business. The authors cite numerous cases of business decisions and discuss how virtue, character, and leadership have major roles in the development of those decisions and their outcomes. Virtuous leadership moves an organization beyond what Lynn Sharp Paine identifies as a compliance orientation, toward a values-based culture in which ethical considerations are routinely and habitually built in to the decision-making process (Paine, Reference Paine1994). In the realm of business, examples abound of leaders who manage to do this well and those who fail to do it at all.
Part II of the book focuses on leadership in action. As the book title indicates, the authors identify ten virtues which they regard as central to good leadership. For each of these virtues, they select at least one person as an exemplar of that character trait and provide a historical narrative of factors surrounding that individual’s decision making. Nearly all of the selected virtues span a standard list that most people would recognize: honesty, courage, compassion, and so forth. But there are some unique values mentioned, too, such as aesthetic sensitivity and good timing. Of course, the list is not intended to be exhaustive, and no individual possesses all of the virtues or even one of them completely. To their credit, the authors even describe some situations in which particular vices were as much a part of the leader’s character as a virtue.
The exemplars are chosen from a wide range of human endeavors, including politics and business; leaders who have engaged social issues constitute an overwhelming majority of the authors’ attention. Gini and Green explain leadership virtues by offering a preceding modifier that places each value in an ethical context, such as “deep honesty” (which includes transparency as well as an absence of duplicity) and “moral courage” (as distinguished from other types, such as courage in battle). “Deep selflessness” does not mean that a person lacks an ego or sense of self-actualization, but that aggrandizement and self-promotion are not one’s primary motives. According to the authors, moral leadership entails deep consideration of others, practically living for others.
The book concludes with a restatement of the argument: ethics is intrinsic to leadership. Gini and Green reinforce their claim that virtue is a matter of character and of habit. Just as there is no perfect leader, there is no perfect set of virtues. Rather, being an exceptional leader is a matter of strengthening the virtuous traits of character that one naturally possesses, while having the self-knowledge and discipline to recognize one’s weaknesses and, in some cases, to surround oneself with persons whose virtues complement those weaknesses. They stress that the positive effects of experience, pain, and trial and error cannot be overlooked or underestimated in the formation of moral leadership.
Gini and Green have provided a solid argument in support of their claim. Their premises consist not only of theoretical and practical observations but also paradigmatic demonstrations, supplied by their selected exemplars and numerous references to cases and historical events. Laced throughout their argument are numerous excellent quotations and provocative claims. A few are worth noting here.
Returning to the issue of how to distinguish a genuine (ethical) leader from a disingenuous one, the authors introduce the concept of a “mis-leader.” A misleader is a bad leader, one who is, at the core, narcissistic—and consequently, one who “undermines the conditions for communal flourishing” (13). Gini and Green’s argument practically requires a concept like misleadership, in order to separate the “good leaders” (Winston Churchill, James Burke, etc.) from the “bad” ones (Adolf Hitler, Bernie Madoff, etc.). However, since no one possesses virtues completely, and not even one of them in a perfect way, much more needs to be said about the nature of misleadership. How do we rationally account for differences in perceptions of vices? At what point does the possession of a vice outweigh whatever virtue an otherwise “good” leader might exhibit? We do not seem to regard the severity or depth of vices equally in distinguishing leadership from misleadership. Because the latter is so central to the main argument, the concept would benefit from greater clarification and development.
Another feature of their argument that warrants more attention is the pernicious “gray zone” that accompanies almost every virtue, which clouds our judgment and ability to clearly separate virtue from vice. For example, with “deep honesty,” the authors make an argument for truthfulness and transparency as opposed to outright deception or covering up. But knowing what to disclose, how much to divulge, and when and under what conditions can often be a very difficult decision, especially in business. Additionally, with “moral courage,” the authors want to distinguish “acting voluntarily” from “acting under compulsion” in order to stress the importance of intentions and avoid the problem of moral luck. But how do we clearly separate the two? Wouldn’t anyone, particularly leaders, acknowledge being compelled to act by situations, circumstances, and even other people? What if the motivation is fear, such as a fear of failure? Does belief that one was forced to act in a given situation undermine the attribution of courage to an actor? These issues and questions do not point to weaknesses in the overall argument but to thought-provoking ideas for further discussion and to salient points that can be a matter of genuine disagreement.
Most important, Gini and Green have produced a very insightful book on leadership that is concise, comprehensible, and straightforward. It clearly and forcefully applies virtue theory in ethics to the field of leadership studies. The book is thoroughly researched and extremely well documented. Clearly, the authors have thought deeply about this subject for a long time and organized those thoughts into an excellent defense of the idea that leadership must include ethics. Although a slim majority of its examples come from politics, other facets and fields of life are represented, among them entertainment, college sports, business, and social issues. Human activities, so diverse, call for leadership in a variety of ways and at various levels. The authors argue persuasively that leadership, in order to be genuine, must be good.
