Leadership and the Professional - Essay Example

?Leadership and the Professional It can accurately be said that modern professionals are also leaders in their respective fields and in the larger community. Many professionals have tremendous influence on those around them and can therefore influence society. Being a leader is definitely challenging but is also rewarding. Being a professional implies a leadership role and professionals are actively engaged in thinking, creating, and collaborating with others (among other things). Leadership and being a professional (having a career) are worthy goals that every one should strive for. And since we live in a free society, there are always opportunities for people to seek after a “career” instead of merely a dead end job. Also, because society tends to value them more, professionals are typically paid the most money and awarded the most respect in society. Using Plato’s “The Republic,” Darwin’s “Origin of the Species,” Lenin’s “What is to be Done,” and “The Rule of St. Benedict” as a guide, this essay will explore what it means to be a modern professional and the moral and ethical dilemmas that professionals (leaders) have to routinely deal with. Because professionals are regarded as experts in their fields, they are given greater authority within society and are viewed as leaders. It is a given that since we grant them this authority, they should use their influence wisely and be ethical and moral people in addition to having certain knowledge and skills. In other words, a professional should also strive to be a well-rounded person with a variety of positive character traits and skills. In “The Republic,” Plato referred to this type of person as a “philosopher-king.” Of course, all professionals are not kings, but his ideal of a philosopher-king can also be applied to any person who is in a significant leadership position. Plato refers to ideal leaders of the State and “Guardians.” He also discusses virtually all the important traits that a Guardian should possess. He believed that leaders should possess not only intelligence and wisdom, but also courage, moderation, and justice. Furthermore, he said that a leader should possess knowledge and reason to rule over baser desires such as desire for money, food, and pleasure. In addition to all these traits, he believed that a leader was one who should have the wisdom to realize what makes for a good life and what makes for a bad one. Still, this is not all Plato believes a leader should posses. He also believes they should have the right temperament; meaning they’re not vicious yet not passive either. Also, this type of person should have a proper education, which he defines as an education that teaches a person to be truthful and just. He also placed a great emphasis in teaching mathematics and, later in a person’s education; the study of philosophy was viewed as the most important subject. Additionally, Plato believed that leaders should stand out from the group as the most virtuous (380 BC). Plato’s views imply that only a select minority are capable of being leaders. While this is mostly true in today’s society, nearly everyone is capable of pursuing a professional career and therefore becoming a leader. Also, Plato was not speaking about leaders in a business sense, but more in a political leadership or “ruling class” sense. However, I believe the ideas he sets forth are relevant to the modern professional as well. After all, because a professional is seen as an expert, they are leaders and people who others look up to for advice and enlightenment. In our society, professionals are basically given the authority to manage or govern in their particular field. Therefore, it is important that these professionals are taught and trained in philosophy as well as in the technical aspects of their profession. If Plato’s Guardians (managers and leaders) are virtuous and just, it will lead to a more productive and happier society. It is interesting that, like Plato, we live in a Democracy but there is still a lot of inequality and exclusion going on. This does not necessarily speak to the theory that Capitalism is inherently bad, but is simply a reflection of human nature. It also makes logical sense that not everyone can be a leader and order people around because ultimately someone has to do the “grunt work.” Additionally, it can be argued that being a leader is hard work and only the best and brightest are willing and capable of leadership. In this sense, Charles Darwin’s work, “Origin of the Species” is very applicable when discussing leadership and the modern professional. Darwin’s concept of “survival of the fittest” can be related not to just the animal world, but the human world as well. Darwin would say that those who are successful in their careers are basically the “fittest” individuals (1859). Also, he would view human survival in the sense that everyone is trying to survive by making as much money as they possibly can. Those who are the most successful gain the ultimate prize; financial stability and the satisfaction of being regarded as a professional leader. So, in Darwin’s view, society is no different from the animal kingdom because everyone is competing and struggling to obtain not only things like food and shelter, but other things like wealth, power, fame, respect, and honor. So, although the modern world sees itself as quite civilized, it could easily be seen as just as savage as the animal world. As related to the modern professional, this view is quite capable of excusing professionals from being immoral and unethical because one could reason that if someone is in a leadership position, they must have gotten there because they are the strongest and the best. In other words, all that matters is that they are at the “top of the food chain” and it doesn’t really matter how they got there. It is reasonable to see corporations and communities as benefiting from the struggle and competition that Darwin saw in the animal world and applied to humans as well. His view is similar to Plato’s in that only the “best” people will become leaders and that is, naturally, what is best for a corporation and society as well. However, Darwin’s only requirement for a leader is that they are stronger than the others whereas Plato has an extensive list of requirements. On the other hand, in the case of a professional, other people (not nature) are determining who the “strongest” people are. Therefore things like integrity and virtue could be seen as competitive strengths if they are valued by society. But again, both Darwin and Plato’s systems are generally exclusive to the “best” people. Whether this is just or not is a matter of debate. It could be accurately said that Darwin’s natural selection would be willing to excuse a brutal dictator. After all, if someone is the strongest can’t they just do whatever they want? Plato would obviously take issue with this assumption because it is important for him that a leader is the most virtuous of people. Many would argue that Vladamir Lenin was a brutal dictator and certainly did not fit the description of Plato’s philosopher-king. Lenin believed that a ruling class of “professional revolutionaries” was needed to collapse the Russian government (1903). This would be the only occupation of these revolutionaries. After the government was collapsed and the new regime took over, one could assume that these revolutionaries would be given the leadership positions in government. One can see that Lenin’s ideas were similar to that of Plato’s and also fit in with Darwin’s theory. The fact that he refers to them as “professional revolutionaries” signifies that they are leaders. However, his ideal leaders are nothing like Plato’s leaders because they are not necessarily required to possess virtue or other positive traits. It seems all that is required of Lenin’s professionals is that obey orders and not think for themselves. Such an environment would be devastating to a modern professional who is trying better themselves by thinking independently and trying to grow and be more fulfilled as a person. Lenin’s view was that there should only be one leader who does all the thinking, while a free society values having many leaders and experts with differing opinions. In such an environment, the best ideas are more likely to win out. Blindly accepting rules and regulations of a professional organization (especially if they are unethical) would clearly give a leader an unfair advantage in which they would be free to oppress those below them. An organization structured like this may be profitable, but only to a select few people and at the detriment of everyone else in the corporation. However, although not on the scale of Lenin, unquestioned obedience and absolute loyalty are still popular in the business world today. But clearly, such an environment is not healthy for the modern professional. Obviously, some loyalty and obedience is required in a professional setting, but when these things become absolute, it only helps a very select few at the top. Such a system of complete obedience could easily be viewed as slavery. Lenin also believed that the end justified the means. Plato would likely oppose this view but it does seem to be in line with Darwin’s theory. Lenin used this theory to justify killing and oppressing millions of people once he got in power because he felt that such sacrifices were necessary in order to realize an ideal State. On a smaller scale (minus the killing), leaders in business often have the same power to oppress workers by doing things like paying them low (unfair) wages. Obviously, this method benefits a select few at the top of the organization. In this case, a business leader’s goal is to realize ideal profits. Yet these profits don’t benefit society but only a select few in society. A society that functions according to Lenin’s principles could be seen as more secure because as long as you are loyal and obedient in every way everything will run more smoothly. However, there is an obvious problem with this because one would have to obey even if they are being mistreated. Lastly, the “Rule of St. Benedict” may seem like a better solution than Lenin’s solution for order in a society. The order of Benedict’s rules could be appealing because something similar to it could impose a much more stable structure than what currently exists in the business world. One could see how the “survival of the fittest” reality of the world is often viewed as unjust and unfair and how a more ordered system that is in line with religious principles could clear up some of the chaos as well as the immorality that exists in our constantly changing world. A system that is similar to the St. Benedict’s appears to be more in line with the virtues that Plato extols. In this sense, systems like St. Benedicts would impose a greater amount of responsibility for professionals to be virtuous and ethical. Whether a system like this would be effective in the business world where the ultimate goal is to make as much profit as possible is, however, questionable. Throughout this essay we have seen the problems that arise between making a profit or obtaining power and maintaining ones virtue and ethics. These conflicts are very relevant to the professional. In people’s own personal lives, it is obvious that there are other things of great value besides just making a lot of money. Therefore, the goal of a professional should not just be to make money, but to live a better quality of life. Plato would agree that in order to have a more fulfilled life you have to possess a variety of virtuous traits. Leadership is definitely a great reward but also requires a professional to give back to the community and improve society the best way that they can. Being ethical and virtuous is clearly what separates good leaders who benefit society from bad leaders who are a detriment to society. References Benedict, St. (530). The Rule of St. Benedict. Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/benedict/rule2/files/rule2.html Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of the Species. Retrieved from http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ Kouzes, J.M. (2010). The Truth about Leadership. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Lenin, Vladimir (1902). What is to be Done? Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ Niebuhr, Reinhold. (2002). Moral Man and Immoral Society. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Plato (380 BC). The Republic. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html Wren, J.T., Riggio, R.E., & Genovese, M.A. (2009). Leadership and the Liberal Arts: Achieving the Promise of a Liberal Education. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More