Debate On Immoral Leadership

Can immoral leadership exist? (For Leadership Class)

Within the realm of leadership, there is an ongoing debate about immoral leadership, namely on whether or not it is possible to be an ‘immoral’ leader. One’s perspective on this is likely determined based on the particular definition of leadership an individual subscribes to. In the following section, this idea will be examined through the lens of two characters from “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Serena and the Commander.

Hulu / Via cosmopolitan.com

The Argument Against Immoral Leadership:

Within the realm of leadership, morality if of the essence, with many of any given leader’s core characteristics stemming from their ethical capacities and the effect this has on their actions and behaviors. Immorality, on the other hand, directly contradicts many attributes commonly accredited to leaders. For instance, “The Student Leadership Challenge” relays two primary factors of being a leader as “affirming shared values” within a group” and “aligning actions with shared values.” Furthermore, the worth of generating meaningful relationships both between individuals and with the community as a whole are also emphasized (Kouzes et al). The dominating idea of immorality, by nature, counters this, as dissolution does not foster such environments, but rather engenders its power solely from fear, manipulation, and other wicked methods. Much like this, Serena and The Commander contradict the very qualities that make for not only effective leadership, but leadership in general. For instance, during their campaign to institute the Republic of Gilead, neither had the consent of all those the implementing regime would affect, but rather only the approval of a small number of armed extremists. This demonstrates a disregard for others, a neglect of different values, and a disregard for establishing any meaningful connections, communication, or relationships between themselves and the people they ‘lead.’ Serena, acting as an advocate for this cause while demanding other women take on a subservient role within their homes is not only hypocritical, but also challenges the needed aspect of ‘practicing what you preach.’ Additionally, the totalitarianism used in this specific immoral instance opposes the necessary feeling of celebration within communities explained by Kouzes and his co-authors. Within Gilead, everyone is to look on others with skepticism, and the institution of The Eye is used to commit small-scale, ongoing terror campaigns against the population to assert sadistic control. Even actions as small as shopping are interpreted as ways to spy on others, as is true with the handmaid’s practices of doing so in pairs, so that, from one handmaid’s recollection, “The truth is that she is my spy, as I am hers” (Atwood, 19). With this depraved combination of a full breakdown of any kind of sincere relationships between people and a disregard for the consent of the governed, it is reasonable to conclude that Serena and The Commander, under the lens of leadership, fail to emerge as any type of leaders.

The Argument For Immoral Leadership:

Hulu / Via static3.businessinsider.com

For those who believe morality and leadership to be two entirely separate entities, immoral leadership can, in fact, exist. Under this perspective, one writer asserts that, “In its purest form, leadership is focused on the wider cause, each guided step with the intent to advance the followers and ultimately, the community as a whole” (Maquiso). Concerned with the ends rather than the means, immoral leadership, especially that featured in both The Commander and Serena, will utilize any methods in order to achieve the desired outcome effectively. For instance, ‘good’ leadership is not synonymous with ‘moral’ leadership, as the former refers to a leader who is able to accomplish their end goal in the most efficient and effectual way possible. As we think of the worst villains in human history, often it is those in power who had committed atrocities that come to mind. In our own reality, an example of such a person is the infamous Adolf Hitler, whose anti-Semitic and overarchingly discriminatory policies led to a several-years long terror campaign resulting in the death of millions. While undeniably and inarguably a terrible figure by definition, it can be said that he was a good leader. His communication skills were impeccable, using just his words to sway large crowds into doing his appalling bidding. A vicious mastermind, his plan for the extermination of all European Jewish individuals was dishearteningly efficacious, with 85% of Yiddish speaker in the world falling victim to his oppressive regime and brutal death sentences (Burnbaum). Not only were his results relatively as intended, it could be argued that his ability to promote and foster change and his dedication to his nefarious cause are, in fact, characteristic for leaders. These aforementioned qualities can largely be attributed to Serena and The Commander as well. Going against her own beliefs about what women’s role in civilization should be, Serena, before Gilead was founded, was a visible public figure, spreading her ideas through invigorating, emotionally-charged speeches and generally advocating for the change she sought with a religious fervor. Although The Commander’s role in the societal revolution that led to the creation of the Republic of Gilead is not explicitly explored beyond the fact that he must have been important, given his large house and allocation of both a wife and a handmaid, it can be inferred that he worked alongside his wife to integrally spur on the uprising’s progress. Both show an effective devotion to their corresponding cause, especially when the insurgency’s general extreme actions, such as bombing Congress, instilling martial law, and forcing women out of their workplaces while simultaneously freezing their bank accounts, are also factored in (Atwood). Overall, though the intent in menacing, both individuals demonstrate an antagonistic version of leadership.

Hulu

It is also important to note that the ideas of morality and immorality themselves can vary vastly from person to person, and, as the saying goes, “Every villain is a hero of his own story.” What may constitute atrocious immorality to one may fit into another’s ethical compass. For Serena Joy and the Commander, the Republic of Gilead is as close to a morally fit society as the world had ever seen. The world order and conditions that they had advocated for were perceived to them to be the best solution to the ills they saw in society. Before the Republic of Gilead was instituted, violence against women was at an all-time high, especially as it pertained to forced, whether directly or by circumstantial causes, prostitution. Heavy pollution in the environment also caused mass infertility rates among the global population, which, the novel demonstrates, was catastrophic for society. As the population steadily diminished, kidnappings became rampant, with even Hannah, June’s daughter, having fallen victim to an attempted kidnapping at the hands of a woman mourning the loss of her own baby. In such a horrifying, degraded, and hysterical society, it is unsurprising that the Commander and Serena both concluded that increased control on the civilization’s habits, behavior, and thinking was needed. Although not mentioned in the book, it is mentioned in the Hulu series, which Margaret Atwood had a large role in making, that the second Ofglen had been a drug-addicted and exploited sex worker, and that since the transformation into the Republic of Gilead her personal circumstances had enhanced immensely. Additionally, in one remarkable instance in the book, the Commander notes to an upset Offred that, “Better never means better for everyone […] it always means worse for some’” (Atwood, 211). To the Commander, a perfect society is not essential, and is not even necessarily possible. Rather, just to, in his perspective, improve circumstances for some and the morality of the state in general is enough to suggest success within that domain.