| back to Past Shows |
![]() Notes on show: Original Airdate 6/27/2006 |
|||||||||||||||
About the Guest Deborah L. Rhode is the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law at Stanford University Law School and the director of the Stanford Center of Ethics, is also the author of many published articles, and recently received the ABA Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award.Listening Notes We all need leaders in our lives: politics, business, education, and the home. But what guarantees that these leaders will be moral and effective rather than corrupt and useless? Ken reminds us of the breadth of leadership types, quoting Shakespeare: some leaders are born, some are made, and some have it thrust upon them. Ken and John begin by discussing what exactly a good leader is by looking at historical examples in different fields. Distinctions are made between leaders that require charisma and those that do not. Ken
introduces the guest Deborah L. Rhode, and John begins by asking her
opinion of whether a good leader can govern effectively without
governing morally. Ken notes the ambiguity of the phrase "good leader"
and the hosts try to arrive at some sort of definition for their
discussion. John questions whether leadership can be taught, and how we
can cultivate leadership in youth of the future. Deborah notes that
leadership is a relationship, and argues that the most effective and
moral are those that inspire others, not coerce them. Ken returns to
Machiavelli and whether a great leader should cheat, lie, and steal to
be effective. Deborah considers that all leaders have probably had to
make decisions they would rather not make from an ethical standpoint,
but nonetheless there is a line that most refuse to cross. John
discusses historical decisions to enter the World Wars and how they
reflect difficult and questionable leadership.
Next
the hosts discuss the heart and spirit of a leader rather than the
definition of good and bad leadership. Ken proposes that there's no one
thing that all leaders have in common, returning again to Shakespeare's
categories of leaders. Deborah brings up the moral failures of
corporate leadership which has recently occurred. She believes this is
due in some ways to the capitalist structure that created these
leaders. Referencing Eichmann in Jerusalem, Deborah
discusses
the "banality of evil" which Hannah Arendt describes. Ken returns to
the qualities which leaders have in common, whether it be in their mind
or heart. Deborah discusses the "Great Man" theory of leadership, but
claims that situational structures are very important and are
unfortunately often not considered. A caller brings up the idea of a
leader who "bears the hardship of the troops" which is obviously
lacking in modern capitalist culture, and Deborah points out that
hypocrisy is one of the least attractive traits for a leader.
Callers
bring up many interesting points about leadership, and the hosts
discuss what it takes to be a good follower and the growing field of
"followship". Deborah argues that one of the best qualities in a leader
is the tendency to share credit and accept blame, although the natural
propensity is to do just the opposite. Ken brings up the Greek
philosophical idea that the leader leads for the good of the people,
not himself. Deborah points out that conflicts of interest are part of
the real world, and a good goal is to develop a structure which
minimizes these conflicts in addition to holding leaders accountable
with the reasonable consideration that no one is perfect. The hosts end
the show by discussing failures of leadership: whether it is the
leader, the followers, or the situation that is most responsible.
Deborah's view is to analyze failures of leadership in a
forward-looking way, trying to prevent the same things from happening
again.
Additional Resources
Wikipedia
entries
General Entries
Online
articles from JSTOR (subscription required)
|
||||||||||||||||
| ©
2004 Philosophy Talk Productions. All rights reserved. Created by Whitetail Web Design. |
||||||||||||||||