Chapter 6: The Courage to Take Moral Action

OVERVIEW

Most activities we engage in fall well within the boundaries of what we consider to be morally right. But there are times when we perceive that boundary being approached or crossed. These ethical junctures require us to examine and clarify our own values and wrestle with the tension between what we feel is right and what opportunities exist for personal gain or loss. We find ourselves face to face with our wonderful and burdensome capacity for free will. The choices we make will define or redefine our character and perhaps our reputation.

In organizational life, this activity is made more complex. Not only do we need to wrestle with these questions in terms of our own choices and behaviors, but we sometimes encounter situations in which we need to take a moral position in relation to the choices and behaviors of our colleagues and, in particular, our leaders. If we have questioned and challenged behavior that crosses or threatens to cross a moral boundary, and that behavior persists, we will be faced with the need to make additional choices.

For example, terrific pressure may exist in an organization to make a key measurement of organizational performance look good by using shortsighted, questionable, or deceptive means. This pressure is symptomatic of deeper organizational dynamics that may or may not be within the capability of a follower to control or influence. Nevertheless, the follower is faced with the choice of whether to go along with the prevailing culture or to take a stand that may generate unpleasant and difficult personal consequences. This is where the courage to take moral action becomes necessary.

What is a moral stand? There are many levels of action or refusal to act, each of which represents a moral stand. Sometimes it is sufficient to choose and act on one level. At other times, a series of choices that build on each other is necessary. One may take a morally motivated action that has the least potential for personal repercussions knowing that if this action proves insufficient, another level of action will be required. The gamut of moral stances may run from refusing to participate in a morally dubious conversation or activity, to refusing to remain in the group if it proceeds with the activity, to publicly opposing the activity. In addition, a variety of intermediate steps surround each of these levels.

Because a courageous follower operates from a sense of loyalty to the common purpose that the organization serves, morally motivated behavior must also factor in the impact of any action, or refusal to act, on the organization itself. One might choose a course of action that succeeds in stopping the morally objectionable behavior but seriously weakens or even destroys a worthwhile organization in the process. Has one behaved morally? This is an important and quite different reason to take incremental steps when confronting morally objectionable behavior if there is a reasonable chance that those steps can lead to the correction of the offending behavior.

Moral action is taken with the intention of bringing the actions of the leadership and organization into line with fundamental values that govern decent organizational behavior while preserving the capacity of the organization to fulfill its purpose.

Failing this, the minimal fallback position of moral action is to refrain from participating in the immoral or morally dubious behavior oneself.

Assuming that a follower has already exercised the courage to challenge and to participate in transformation, the actions to contemplate under the heading “The Courage to Take Moral Action” revolve around several points. These include the decision of whether to appeal to higher levels of authority within the organization, whether to stay in or leave an organization, how to frame conversations and actions around these decision-making processes, and how to conduct oneself in the face of different potential outcomes.

The stakes can be very high for an individual faced with these moral choices since they often involve the risk of leaving or being forced by the organization to leave under very strained circumstances.

I know personally how difficult this can be. In my mid-thirties, I found that I had devoted a significant portion of my adult life to an organization and its leader that were increasingly at odds with my values and vision. Initially, I couldn’t acknowledge my discomfort with the leader’s actions. I manifested the conflict I felt through stress-induced illness. Only when I became persona non grata for participating in an internal reform effort did I confront the fact that it was truly time to separate.

But for some of my contemporaries in the organization, leaving wasn’t enough. They felt it important to publicly oppose the organization’s practices. Still others, who were also uncomfortable with the practices, felt duty-bound to stay with the organization and try to be change agents from within. This is a personal decision. There is not necessarily a moral imperative to choose one course or the other. But it is important that we make the decision consciously.

Healthy followership is a conscious act of free will. When we no longer believe that what we are doing is the best thing or the right thing, we must review our options and their respective consequences. Otherwise we are in danger of becoming automatons with a dulled sense of responsibility for our actions, who serve neither ourselves nor the leader and common purpose well.