| Abstrakt: |
Uses Kant’s moral philosophy to provide a normative theory of leadership. First shows how Kant’s philosophy would reject instrumental theories of leadership and most charismatic theories of leadership. Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, it questions some of the assumptions of servant leadership and puts constraints on transformational leadership and the leader as educator. The central concept of Kant’s moral philosophy is the dignity given to autonomy. Thus a good leader ought to respect and enrich the autonomy of followers. The Kantian leader turns followers into leaders. One might think that a Kantian theory of leadership is as much an oxymoron as business ethics itself. After all, it is a conceptual truth that a leader must have followers. Moreover, people tend to think that a follower is of lesser rank than a leader. For many the term “leader” has hierarchical and even élitist connotations. Kant’s moral philosophy, on the other hand, is basically egalitarian. It is Kant who provides the intellectual justification for the respect for persons principle. Kant points out that each person thinks of himself or herself as a rational creature who is entitled to dignity and respect. Consistency then requires that each person recognize the rational nature of other persons and thus recognize that other persons are also entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. This is why Kant argues that one cannot use another as a means merely. In yet another formulation of the categorical imperative Kant argues that in a community or organization we are bound by rules but by rules that we ourselves would accept as rational legislators. Thus in such communities, which Kant calls kingdoms of ends, the members are all equally subject and sovereign. Given these egalitarian commitments, how can Kant provide a theory of leadership when “leadership” has connotations of élitism and hierarchy? Suggesting a way ou... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
