Selected Reading By Ryan Oberholtzer Spring Semester 2013

 Woodruff examines ancient Athenian democracy to examine leadership in the ancient world.  The Athenians, though vastly outnumbered, defeat the Persians in the battle of Marathon; other Greek city states had fared poorly against the same force—for the Athenians, this outcome is attributed to their “freedom.”  Woodruff determines the “shape” of this freedom by outlining its positive and negative aspects, namely freedom for what and freedom from what.  Athenian democracy can be roughly understood as freedom from tyranny, and freedom for access to participation in the decision making processes of the state.

 Similarly, Woodruff argues that leadership has positive and negative aspects that can offer insights into what leadership is and what leadership is not, according to ancient Athenians.  The ancient Greek tragic poets are a source for gleaning an understanding of what good and bad leadership looked like to the Athenians.  Let’s compare Woodruff’s findings on the attributes of good and bad leaders; or rather, leaders and tyrants.

LEADERSTYRANTS  Exhibit Reverence.  Attend to Justice  Govern and are governed by the law.  Respect the opinions of others.  Are transparent action.  Exhibit Hubris.  Attend to self-interest.  Expect to be above the law, break the law to fulfill interests.  Ignore sage advice and opinions.

LEADERSTYRANTS  Do not feel uniquely qualified for leadership role (others can be effective).  Are accountable for their own actions.  Rule through collaboration.  Perform deception and concealment to maintain authority.  Cannot be held to account.  Rule through fear; Ruled by fear.

HUBRIS—VICE OF TYRANTS REVERENCE—VIRTUE OF LEADERS  Hubris is often thought of as arrogance or pride.  To the ancients, Hubris had a more expansive definition.  Hubris is any violation or outrage against anything anyone held sacred.  Hubris is any abuse of power by the strong against the weak.  Reverence is the opposite of Hubris.  Reverent leaders remember their humanity, and their limitations.  Prevents abuse of power through leaders’ recognition of oneness with weaker members of the community.

HUBRIS—VICE OF TYRANTS REVERENCE—VIRTUE OF LEADERS  Hubris defines the separation or distance between the divine and human worlds— essentially it describes limitations.  These limitations are recognized and respected by leaders, rejected by tyrants, which leads to social discord.  Holds weaker members as sacred (under protection of the divine, since they have no power of their own to appeal to).  Cultivates respect.  Sets up accountability of action.  Sets expectations of treatment, when leaders respect these expectations, cooperation and collaboration follow.

 In modern leadership theory, there is an emerging recognition that authentic leadership leading to employee or follower engagement and productivity is more effective than appeals to fear.  Application of the principles underlying the discussion of Hubris and Reverence will lead to the cultivation of Justice in the organization; attending to procedural fairness, self-awareness, and engaging in authentic transformational leadership reduce conflict and encourage collaboration and engagement.

 One of the most potentially disastrous phenomena in conflict is face-saving. It is particularly troublesome since, face-saving not only impacts every conflict to some extent, but can be a catalyst to introduce a myriad of undesirable effects in conflict, such as reduction of flexibility, issue expansion, diversion of attention from substantive issues, movement toward impasse, the encouragement of all or nothing approaches to resolution, and movement toward inclusion of an outside party to address concerns (Folger, et, al, 2009 p. 181).  If leaders apply the ancient principle of reverence rather than hubris, less attempts will be made at face-saving, recognizing that they are not uniquely qualified for their position, and are accountable; by soliciting opinion and engagement, face-giving is more likely to occur in leaders who are not operating in a fear-based mode.

 Person-centered speech is a powerful strategy in face-giving that Folger, et, al (2009) outline; because as Goffner (1955) explains, every interaction is potentially face-threatening, the value of face-giving in producing harmonious interaction in conflict rather than becoming enmeshed in face-saving and its destructive elements is paramount to producing favorable and truly integrated outcomes.  If parties agree to terms and resolve a conflict, but one party feels their face was damaged in the conflict without remedy, the integrated state of equilibrium remains fragile and bound to explode in future conflict. In contrast, person- centered speech ensures parties’ identities remain valued as original, unique and valid.  Leaders employing face-giving and person-centered speech are engaging in behaviors I would associate with the virtues of Reverence and Justice.

 Leaders who seek to operate in a globalized world need to have a sense of social responsibility (opposite of hubris) in order to act in an ethical manner and protect the organizations they work for and the community of stakeholders (everyone).  Sustainability and corporate social responsibility is highly dependent on leaders who recognize the needs of the most vulnerable members of the community and create balance with corporate interests and duty to the community.  Acceptance of accountability and the rule of law is especially important for leaders in the global world to avoid hubris and adopt reverence as the modus operandi.