Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Voltaire stated, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Many can attest that the greater the power, the greater responsibility. Power seems to be the force that motivates people in making decisions that will benefit their organization if properly utilized or hinder its progress if abused. Morgan (2006, p. 166) asserts,

Power is the medium through which conflicts of interest are ultimately resolved. While some view power as a resource (i.e., as something one possesses), others view it as a social relation characterized by some kind of dependency (i.e., as an influence over something or someone). Power influences who gets what, when and how.

Over the years, I have heard comments such as, “I don’t want that job because I don’t want the responsibility, or that responsibility isn’t worth the headache.”  While it is true that power and responsibility are synonymous, it is also true that power+responsibility=corruption at times. Hence, the questions, “Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?” What will an individual do to “get what he/she wants, when and how?” In order to answer the aforementioned questions, it is imperative to give a synopsis of how the theory of “absolute power  corrupts absolutely” emerged.

The Online Library of Liberty (2008) reports that Lord Acton

was one of the great historians of the Victorian period and one of the greatest classical liberal historians of all time. His theme was ‘the history of liberty’ and even though he was never able to complete his magnum opus of that name he did write numerous essays, book reviews, and lectures. He also was the inspiration behind the multi-volume Cambridge Modern History. [He wrote to Bishop Creighton that] the same moral standards should be applied to all men, political and religious leaders included, especially since ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (1887). [In his letters to Bishop Creighton, Lord Acton expresses the following:] I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

Lord Acton believed that morals played a critical role in corruption. Indeed, anyone in authority that does not abide by laws, policies, rules, and regulations, is viewed as a rebel that commits immoral acts. They believe they are above the law and will abuse their power “in the best interest of the company or the organization.” Absolute power can lead to corruption. We have seen many politicians, doctors, lawyers, preachers, and educators fall because of their hunger for power. The truth is that no one is exempt from corruption and corruption hurts many. Corruption damages lives and no one is exempt from its pain.
Shapiro, Ingols, & Blake-Beard (2011) contend that

to be successful, all managers—male and female—must be proficient in the use of power. But does the exercise of power mean the same thing for both men and women? We would argue “no,” that there are gendered expectations regarding how men and women are supposed to use power, and that both men and women may face a double bind when enacting power.

People often lose control of power and let power control them. Individuals that have absolute power for the first time often do not know how to manage it. Often times, they get too hung up on titles and handles that they feel the need to prove themselves. In the process of making a name for themselves, they exploit and abuse people and continuously remind them of “who is in charge.” In addition, many individuals with absolute power do not want to let any power go. Instead of empowering others, they empower themselves by making it known that others do not have any type of authority to make any decisions. 

Sandelands (2008) describes power as

the ability to get things done through people—is said to be the key to success in business and, indeed, everything else in life. Power would thus seem to be an unalloyed good, something to always seek and exercise. But this is not how power is seen by many or most people. By identifying human power with nature (with fact, with how the world is) instead of with justice (with value, with how the world ought to be), these ideas strip human power of its moral dimension, of its connection to what is right and good. Such amoral reasoning about power turns to amoral practice in ideas about how to manage power in organizations.

Nature does play a vital role in how an individual handles absolute power. A person’s educational, cultural, and socio economic background may influence the way a person uses the power he/she is given. Many individuals are egotistical in nature for various reasons. Children with no siblings have a strong sense of self because they have never had to be compared to anyone. All attention was given to them and they feel they are of utmost importance. They have difficulty sharing, listening, and are very dominant and controlling. Goh & Kuczynski (2009, p. 529) state, “single children enjoy an elevated position at home, with enhanced leeway regarding their expression of agency in inter- actions with the multiple caregivers who revolve around them.” With this in mind, single children may grow up as adults who feel they must maintain that “elevated position” and will do whatever it takes to remain as such.

Other individuals who come into some type of authority care about making a name for them and want to do things that will benefit them in future endeavors. Malhotra & Gino (2011, pp. 559-592) share that “people experiencing a sense of entitlement, who therefore have inflated aspirations about what is to be gained from the exchange relationship, will be more likely to engage in exploitative and opportunistic behavior as a means to achieve these aspirations.” Those “entitled” individuals see themselves above everyone else. They do not value others’ positions, thoughts, time, or worth. Individuals with absolute power who believe they are “entitled” often commit immoral acts in order to justify their “entitlement.” The unethical acts commonly consist of tampering with files and records, obtaining perks, and stealing money.

Organizations as a whole can also be corrupt. In order to maintain a certain status, organizations 

will do unethical things to get desired results.  Morgan (2006, p. 173) states,

our understandings of problems and issues often act as mental straitjackets that prevent us from seeing other ways of formulating basic concerns and finding the alternative courses of action. Many of these unobtrusive controls are ‘cultural’ in the sense that they are built into organizational assumptions, beliefs, and practices about ‘who we are’ and ‘the way we do things around here.’

            Organizations can manipulate information to get consumers/clients to believe that they are providing a quality service when indeed they are not. They make things appear attractive, organized, and glamorous but underneath it all, they are rotten to the core. Many organizations exploit their workers by making them work extra hours without pay, making them work in deplorable conditions, not giving them full benefits, and threatening and intimidating them.

            

So the question remains, “Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?” Only you can determine your own truth.

References

Goh, E., & Kuczynski, L. (2009). Agency and Power of Single Children in Multi-

Generational Families in Urban Xiamen, China. Culture & Psychology , 506-

532.

Malhotra, D., & Gino, F. (2011). The Pursuit of Power Corrupts; How Investing in

Outside Options Motivates Opportunism in Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly , 559-592.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sandelands, L. (2008). Thy Will Be Done? Journal of Management Inquiry , 137-142.

Shapiro, M., Ingols, C., & Blake-Beard, S. (2011). Using Power to Influence Outcomes:

Does Gender Matter. Journal of Management Education , 713-748.

The Online Library of Liberty. (2008, September 3). Retrieved October 24, 2013, from

The Online Library of Liberty: oll.libertyfund.org

Ethics, Morality, and Philosophical Beliefs

Ethics, Morality, and Philosophical Beliefs

Melissa Oliva

Prairie View A&M University

            Ethics, morals, and philosophical beliefs define who we are as individuals. They let people know what we represent, what we stand for, and what our non-negotiables are. As educational leaders who serve an entire community, it is our duty to represent ourselves, our profession and our community, with the highest degree of dignity and honor.

It has been said that educational leaders should protect their “testimony” since they are in public view at all times. My belief is that we do not have to protect anything if we are living moral lives. Our good moral character should be evident everywhere we go because we are a true representation of moral and ethical living. We must demonstrate that we are transparent and genuine. Abigail Landsbrook stated, “true morals are a priceless thing that possesses the highest value and can never be bought or sold at any cost.”  Ethical leaders represent integrity. Like Abigail Landsbrook said, they cannot be bought. They do not take shortcuts, cover-ups, or setbacks. Moral leaders also do not act out of emotion. They analyze situations to determine what is in the best interest of the situation at hand. Daniels (2012, p. 333) contends, “when people perceive a decision that is risky despite the facts, they are less willing to employ it.” Far too many people have fallen into the trap of their emotions although they know making certain decision may bring them temporary satisfaction and lifelong suffering.

Olivier (2011, p. 70) states, “right decision making is described as finding the golden mean between the extreme options at hand. The right decision characterizes a person, so it is important that a person makes sustainable decisions.” Moral leaders make decisions that are ethical and fair. They do not make decisions for their own good. When moral leaders make the right decisions, they are trusted. Trust is a bond that takes time to build yet seconds to destroy. As educational leaders, we must make decisions that will afford all stakeholders an opportunity to see firsthand the type of leader we are. Our actions will indeed speak louder than our words.

          We do have to understand though that people look up to us and we must be conscious that we are public servants. Often times, we cannot go to the store, a function, or even out of town, without being recognized by a student, parent, or colleague. Students will run across a store and leave their parents just to come and greet us. One can say that we are continuously under the microscope for we are endlessly monitored top-down and bottom-up. Therefore, our credibility, integrity, and work ethic should be unquestionable at all times. We serve as role models that transform lives and influence society. People in our community have entrusted that we will provide a safe and nurturing environment that communicates high expectations, and does everything to ensure students succeed. Moral educational leaders do not act in self-interest but make decisions for the “good” of the organization. That is why it is vital that ethics can be clearly seen within the educational community. One of my favorite Jesse Jackson quotes states, “Leadership cannot just go along to get along. Leadership must meet the moral challenge of the day.” Heslep (1997, p. 74) contends,

the direction provided by educational leadership is essentially related to the education of students. By its very concept, educational leadership is never primarily for the benefit of administrators, teachers, political groups, or economic interests; it is always mainly for the education of students, however that might be conceived.

Furthermore, in a discussion I had with my friend and colleague, Pastor Reuben Sampson, Jr. (2013), he shared that

morality should be present in the workplace. This ensures that the ‘anything goes’ mentality does not permeate the workplace. Those who work in education should not only teach morality but live morally before our colleagues and students. We must educate mind and manners by precept and example.

Unfortunately, many in our field have neglected to stand firm and defend our moral

obligation and responsibilities. Immanuel Kant stated, “In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.”

The cliché of “common sense isn’t so common anymore” is not so much a cliché anymore but an inevitable truth. Dr. Brant Graham (2013), a dear friend and former colleague, described his view of the aforementioned as such: “It’s just like mama taught you, don’t lie, steal or cheat and, always remember, the difference between being human and being a criminal. Humans make mistakes, criminals hide them.”

Dr. Graham’s statement represents truth but his statement also raises the imponderable question of, “Why is it so difficult for many people to do the right thing?” I am sure many of us know of at least one person that has committed an illegal act. This was probably the person we would have “never imagined would do something like this!” I know I have even gone as far as saying, “How could he/she have been so stupid. What were they thinking?” Besides the obvious, they were not thinking, one other answer I pondered on was that not everyone shares our core beliefs. As educational leaders, we must have shared philosophical beliefs with all stakeholders in order to keep the environment ethically and morally sound. It has been said that a house divided cannot stand. Ethical leaders must obtain school wide buy-in in order to achieve the organization’s goals. If the team does not agree with the leader’s beliefs, then division will begin. Heslep (1997) asserts,

philosophers, then, do not count an answer as justified until all questions originated by that answer have been justifiably answered. To justify all those questions, philosophers ultimately have to offer fundamental ideas. It is by justifying their answers to their questions that philosophers fill in the gaps in their understanding and gain wisdom. (p.71)

          He also believes that “philosophical thought will enable those engaged in educational leadership to overcome the deficiencies of professional common sense in making judgments” (Heslep, 1997, p. 69).

          As educational leaders, we must represent what we want viewed in our organizations. We must do good at all times regardless of the situation, pressure, or consequence. We must hold our heads up high and stand for what we believe.

References

B. Graham, personal communication, October 11, 2013.

Daniels, T. L. (2012). Decision Making in Eurocentric and Afrocentric Organizations. Journal of

          Black Studies , 333.

Heslep, R. D. (1997). The Practical Value of Philosophical Thought for the Ethical Dimension of

          Educational Leadership. Educational Administration Quartely , 69-74.

Olivier, A. (2011). How ethical is leadership? Leadership , 70.

R. Sampson, personal communication, October 11, 2013.