I know I have touched on this before regarding the Petraeus scandal (and elsewhere), but it bears emphasizing—especially since so many seem to be unable to process the concept. Leaders cannot be seen as willing to violate their own rules, principles and those of the organizations they represent. Arguing that the rules violated are foolish, or outdated, or too restrictive does not rebut this fact of leadership in any way, but making that argument does show beyond question that the pundit making it doesn’t comprehend the most basic facts of leadership and the building of ethical cultures.

Today’s Sunday papers are awash in editorials and op-ed pieces by former intelligence personnel, lawyers, social scientists and other pundits blaming the widening Petraeus scandal ( now focusing on Gen. John Allen, the U.S. commander in Kabul, and the significance of his exchanging thousands of inappropriate emails with Jill Kelley, the Tampa socialite who is apparently the military equivalent of a rock-and-roll groupie, only older) on antiquated morals and political opportunism. There are too many of these bewildered commentators to count, but their views all ooze from the same basic, shockingly facile, and in some cases intentionally misleading theory, which is that Petraeus’s and Allen’s conduct are irrelevant to their ability to do their jobs. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, usually one of the more rational and objective of that paper’s leftward chorus, actually reprints verbatim an e-mail he received from an Arab diplomatic source as if it contains illumination rather than naiveté:

“He needs to resign cause he has an affair? What da hell??? He is brilliant!!!! Why like this????”

 Since Ignatius outrageously calls the government’s inquiry into what our military leaders are doing while they are supposedly leading the troops a “witch hunt” and likens it to Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible,” it is not surprising that he finds this ethically clueless message profound. Note to Ignatius: there were in fact no witches in Salem, and are no witches at all. There are leaders, however, in the military and elsewhere, who exploit their positions and power to seduce subordinates, compromise national security by focusing on sex rather than their duties, and undermine their authority and their organization’s values by themselves violating the principles of integrity and self-discipline they instruct their subordinates to respect and follow. Leaders who behave like this are not “brilliant.” They are rather “bad leaders,” and when they are discovered to be engaging in these un-leaderlike activities, they have to go, whatever other virtues they might have.

“Why like this?” “Like this” because leaders cannot extol virtues that they do not embody. They cannot enforce rules that they violate, and they cannot maintain trust by showing that they are willing —as in adultery—to betray others to whom they have promised fidelity. That is “why this.” And when a leader breaks the rules of his own organization, whether or not the rules are reasonable or wise, the message sent throughout the organization is that breaking rules is really OK. Lying is fine. Integrity doesn’t matter. Once that cultural norm is inflicted on an organization by its leader, the organization itself will become dysfunctional, untrustworthy and corrupt. The fact that this one incident has uncovered two generals—leaders, role models—in positions of great influence–who appear to be unable to meet this high standard absolutely justifies, indeed mandates, an investigation into whether it is a sign of a deeper cultural problem in the military and intelligence community that must be repaired. That’s not a witch hunt. That is organizational sanity.

The Petraeus defenders demonstrate stunning ignorance of centuries old lessons of leadership which Petraeus himself could recite chapter and verse. A leader can not control others if he cannot control himself. A leader must embody the best of values and ideals, not the most typical approximation of them. The leader cannot be seen as a hypocrite,  as exploiting his or her power, or exhibiting reckless judgment that places the organization at risk. A leader must be trusted to mean what he says, and to act according to the stated rules of the organization he leads.

And the fish rots from the head.

That is “why this.” Petraeus’s defenders, whoever they are, either have never led anything or were bad leaders when they did. Don’t listen to them. They are merely part of the rotting process, and we respect them at our peril.

___________________________________________

Source: J C Online

Graphic: Ranker

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.