Effective leadership of change almost always begins with commitment by leaders to the moral principle of respect for followers. Granted, to predicate a theory of leadership on a moral foundation is to risk confusion with the current, trendy concern with individual “virtue” or “character.” Without question, the leader’s relationship with followers must be a moral one, but that does not mean that only leaders who are Christ-like in their private lives can be effective. In fact, a review of any list of great leaders will reveal that almost all were flawed human beings with notable private failings. The practical problem with the current wisdom that “private behavior predicts public behavior” is the simple fact that in the lives of most men and women there is a least one act that if made public would disqualify them from positions of leadership. If we insist on perfection of character, we are unlikely to find many exemplary leaders, and our analysis will end in despair.
In the late nineteenth century, the people of Ireland made the terrible mistake of confusing private with public morality. In 1889 Charles Stewart Parnell, arguably his country’s greatest leader, had succeeded in the British parliament to create the conditions necessary to win Home Rule for Ireland. As his country stood on the brink of freedom from British domination, it was revealed that Parnell was involved in an adulterous relationship with the woman he would subsequently marry. The Irish responded to the news by rejecting totally the legitimacy of Parnell’s leadership. By thus insisting that their leaders be saintlike in their private lives, the Irish lost the opportunity for freedom, an opportunity that did not arise again until the next century.
Leaders must always keep faith with their people: they must never lie to their followers or break the laws they are charged with upholding. In all dimensions, their public lives must meet the strictest standards of morality. But distinctions need to be made: a great senator is no less great as a leader if he is occasionally drunk at home over dinner, for that is a private matter; a senator who takes the smallest bribe is an unworthy leader regardless of anything else, because that is a public matter. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were great leaders because they were true to the citizens of America—even though they were unfaithful to each other. In contrast, Richard Nixon failed the test of leadership because he was unfaithful to his oath of office and lied to the citizenry. His failures as a leader are in no way mitigated by the doubtlessly reliable accounts that he was faithful to Pat, his wife.
Jimmy Carter was perhaps the most moral of presidents in both private and public life, yet he was not a great president. Although he was as committed as Jefferson and Lincoln to securing the natural rights of all humankind, unlike the Rushmoreans he was ineffective in his pursuit of that end. In short, while morality is a necessary ingredient of leadership, it is not sufficient.
The Rushmorean standard of excellence is the two-fold ability to lead change both morally and effectively. And the gauge of the greatness of leaders is their public record measured over their entire lifetimes. By the absolutist moral standards applied today, the private lives of the four Rushmoreans, if given a thorough airing in the media, would probably not appear sufficiently clean to allow these to hold office. Yet, by standards of public morality, the lives of all four presidents were exemplary. The morality of their leadership was rooted in the goals they pursued and the nature of their relationship with those they served. The Rushmoreans served not to aggrandize their personal power but instead to realize the needs and aspirations of their followers.
What the four Rushmoreans had in common was the practice of values-based leadership. We find evidence of this in Washington’s Second Inaugural Address, in Jefferson’s Declaration, in Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg, and in TR’s cornfield oration. Each of these addresses contains valuable clues to the mystery of how flawed humans are able to turn themselves into great leaders. By calling attention to higher-order values, these leaders offered visions of a better world that transcended the pretty differences of their followers.
Jefferson believed that it was the duty of the president “to inform…the legislative judgement.” He sought to mold public opinion by elevating the debates of the day above the petty concerns that divided the Congress. In a State of the Union address, he sought to unite the people’s elected representatives around a vision of the common good, telling them that “[t]he prudence and temperance of your discussions will promote, within your own walls, that conciliations which so much befriends national conclusion; and by its example will encourage among our constituents that progress of opinion which is tending to unite them in object and in will.” That is values-based leadership. And that is why business leaders could do worse than to study the careers of the Rushmoreans.
In the late nineteenth century, the people of Ireland made the terrible mistake of confusing private with public morality. In 1889 Charles Stewart Parnell, arguably his country’s greatest leader, had succeeded in the British parliament to create the conditions necessary to win Home Rule for Ireland. As his country stood on the brink of freedom from British domination, it was revealed that Parnell was involved in an adulterous relationship with the woman he would subsequently marry. The Irish responded to the news by rejecting totally the legitimacy of Parnell’s leadership. By thus insisting that their leaders be saintlike in their private lives, the Irish lost the opportunity for freedom, an opportunity that did not arise again until the next century.
Leaders must always keep faith with their people: they must never lie to their followers or break the laws they are charged with upholding. In all dimensions, their public lives must meet the strictest standards of morality. But distinctions need to be made: a great senator is no less great as a leader if he is occasionally drunk at home over dinner, for that is a private matter; a senator who takes the smallest bribe is an unworthy leader regardless of anything else, because that is a public matter. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were great leaders because they were true to the citizens of America—even though they were unfaithful to each other. In contrast, Richard Nixon failed the test of leadership because he was unfaithful to his oath of office and lied to the citizenry. His failures as a leader are in no way mitigated by the doubtlessly reliable accounts that he was faithful to Pat, his wife.
Jimmy Carter was perhaps the most moral of presidents in both private and public life, yet he was not a great president. Although he was as committed as Jefferson and Lincoln to securing the natural rights of all humankind, unlike the Rushmoreans he was ineffective in his pursuit of that end. In short, while morality is a necessary ingredient of leadership, it is not sufficient.
The Rushmorean standard of excellence is the two-fold ability to lead change both morally and effectively. And the gauge of the greatness of leaders is their public record measured over their entire lifetimes. By the absolutist moral standards applied today, the private lives of the four Rushmoreans, if given a thorough airing in the media, would probably not appear sufficiently clean to allow these to hold office. Yet, by standards of public morality, the lives of all four presidents were exemplary. The morality of their leadership was rooted in the goals they pursued and the nature of their relationship with those they served. The Rushmoreans served not to aggrandize their personal power but instead to realize the needs and aspirations of their followers.
What the four Rushmoreans had in common was the practice of values-based leadership. We find evidence of this in Washington’s Second Inaugural Address, in Jefferson’s Declaration, in Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg, and in TR’s cornfield oration. Each of these addresses contains valuable clues to the mystery of how flawed humans are able to turn themselves into great leaders. By calling attention to higher-order values, these leaders offered visions of a better world that transcended the pretty differences of their followers.
Jefferson believed that it was the duty of the president “to inform…the legislative judgement.” He sought to mold public opinion by elevating the debates of the day above the petty concerns that divided the Congress. In a State of the Union address, he sought to unite the people’s elected representatives around a vision of the common good, telling them that “[t]he prudence and temperance of your discussions will promote, within your own walls, that conciliations which so much befriends national conclusion; and by its example will encourage among our constituents that progress of opinion which is tending to unite them in object and in will.” That is values-based leadership. And that is why business leaders could do worse than to study the careers of the Rushmoreans.
