5.2: Inhibit leadership growth

Successful leaders exercise authority or power of authority in a free and pluralistic society consisting of members who choose to follow through no single code of ethics but several sets of values emanating from a variety of cultures and subcultures (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010). Leadership is about influencing and motivating and therefore as a motivator the ethical leader should seek to fit the individual member to the environment for the greater good of the organization.

Manipulation Leadership in a perfect world is motivation by bending people's pathway so that they head toward a predetermined outcome. Leaders from time to time may find the need to bend the intended paths of others for noble reasons. Then is there such a thing as an ethical manipulator? Realistically there may events that require this measure and might be for self-serving gain as well. Either way, seeking to redirect the will of others is often referred to as directing, structuring or focusing behaviors (Zigarmi, Blanchard, O'Conner, & Edeburn, 2005).

Manipulation of others may be viewed as coercive, deceptive, or self-serving by followers while at the same time might be considered by the leader as fair, motivational, purposeful, humble and honorable. However, any leadership practice that increases another’s sense of self-determination, self-confidence, and personal effectiveness is practicing empowerment creating an atmosphere for success (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Leadership has always involved politics (Gardner, 1990) and substantive leadership requires an ethical leader who possesses the philosophical and moral foundation for decision making (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010).

The motives used to influence/motivate/manipulate (interactive/co-existent terms) others are generally labeled honorable when incorporated with the intent to benefit the organization. Likewise, honorable, when increasing the ability of the member(s) in an organization through the integration of discretionary decision making, legitimacy of action and accountability. The antithesis of the honorable motivator is the unethical leader that is deceitful, inconsistent, misplace and break loyalties and are irresponsible and generally self-serving (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010). The question arises when is it in the best interest of the leader, follower, and organization to implement manipulation. Is this method justified if the original intent is for the good of the order, or if the outcome is positively viewed by the membership?

An unintended outcome of this style is that a leader may become dreadfully challenged when it comes time to withdraw the manipulation and equally challenged because it is so easy to use it for self-serving purposes. When exercising manipulative leadership, it becomes comfortable to be drawn into the Authoritarian Leader/Coercive Leader that is task oriented and is hard on followers. The autocratic leaves little or no allowance for cooperation or collaboration. Heavily task oriented modes depict the authoritarian as: very strong on schedules; expect people to do what they are told without question or debate; when something goes wrong focus on who is to blame rather than concentrate on exactly what is wrong and how to prevent it; and intolerance for dissent. In short there is no room for subordinates to develop under this style.

In summary the Authoritarian leader corrupts an environment for growth, flexibility, and change. This method has a purpose in the CJ system but generally in tactical situations and not leadership roles. Personal and organizational ethics is now in question and it takes introspection and often humiliation to snap back to a more transformational style. Leaders that have survived Gen X, Y and Millennial time frames (not necessarily the people) have found non-authoritarian styles highly maintenance intensive, time consuming, and resource heavy to maintain.