Leadership Decisions:
The word ethos is a Greek word meaning character or customs (Solomon, 1984). Many scholars like to distinguish between ethics and morality, suggesting that moralityrefers to the nature of human values and that ethicsrefers to the study of human moral behavior (Solomon, 1984). Both concepts intertwine in everyday life and suggest that we use these words to describe how people review and assess a leader's actions as doing things right or doing the right thing (Bennis, 2003). The intimacy between the two concepts is most dramatic when associated with leaders and leadership, particularly if those who are designated followers are in opposition or harmony with a leader's actions. Under such conditions where followers judge their leaders, it becomes imperative that tangible mechanisms be established that reflect the leaders principles.
Moral vs. Non-moral Leadership:
In terms of sets, that which lies outside the domain of moral concerns is non-moral. For example, if a leader chooses to eat steak for each meal, the consumption of steak does not inculcate a moral decision; however if there is a paucity of food and the leader eats at the expense of all others who are hungry, there is moral question. This implies the need for moral standard or a moral compass that relates behaviors with outcomes that could benefit or injure people. When leaders apply moral standards, public interests may supplant personal interests and the correctness of a decision depends of the soundness of reasoning that justifies the leader's actions. Ultimately, authoritative bodies who govern validate and change standards; however, Shaw states that "More precisely, the validity of moral standards depends not on the authoritative fiat but on adequacy of the reasons that support or justify them. Precisely what constitutes adequate reasons for moral standards is problematic and...underlies disagreement about the legitimacy of specific moral principles (1999, pp. 6-7).
Leadership Strength:
Our world and its microcosm configurations such as communities, institutions, and organizations are laden with uncertainty, turbulence, and complexity. If acting morally requires courage, where does a leader draw the personal strength to act courageously? Self-reflection may underpin the answer to this question. Understanding one's foibles and one's power requires self-analysis of one's own character and that of those who should be emulated. In the last lecture, the concept of emotional intelligence as a vehicle that is purposefully managed was addressed. In like manner, a leader's vulnerability may not come from transparent weaknesses but their vulnerability may surface when personal qualities are disregarded or denied. Relationships between leaders and follows are seldom built when emotional connections cannot be developed. Power lies in getting close to others and doing what is best for others (Daft, 2005).