The Malaise of Moral Laryngitis

"By doing the right thing first, you avoid destructive and divisive compromises. I think that everyday we're constantly debating whether or not to sell out or to be true. Sometimes we can seek to be both true and popular, but that option is more the exception than the norm. As Peter Drucker said, "You first have to ask what is right, and then ask what is possible--and in that order." Most people only ask what is possible and never deal with the other question. If you ask what is right, then what is possible, you will know what compromises are appropriate."(1)
Stephen Covey

This quote challenges us to remember an essential practice of great leadership. It is the practice of moral examination by which we determine the wisdom and rightness of our actions. Great leadership that builds great people depends upon moral examination as a guiding light, regardless of the time and energy that is required. Determining what is right to do allows us to move forward emboldened with a clear conscience about our actions.

Dr. Stephen Carter, in his book Integrity, puts forward the following three steps as requirements for acting with integrity.

1. Discerning what is right and what is wrong
2. Acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost
3. Saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong (2)

Leaders often find taking these three steps to be a challenge. Moreover, many of today’s leaders deem the third step to be also inappropriate. Dr. Carter, a Professor of Law at Yale University, counters this unfortunate opinion by stating,

“The third step – saying publicly that we are doing what we think is right, even when others disagree – is made particularly difficult by our national desire to conform. Most of us want to fit in, to be accepted, and admitting to (or proudly proclaiming) an unpopular belief is rarely the way to gain acceptance. But if moral dissenters are unwilling to follow the example of the civil rights movement and make a proud public show of their convictions, we as a nation will never have the opportunity to be inspired by their integrity to rethink our own ideas.” (3)

Dr. Carter’s point is illuminating. When leaders are unwilling to express the moral basis for their decisions they give up the great opportunity to challenge their constituents to moral reflection and moral action. By consistently silencing their moral voice, leaders display a common symptom of the malaise that I call moral laryngitis. Moral laryngitis is the unwillingness to speak about one’s moral beliefs or to publicly challenge moral issues. Sadly this cultural sickness is becoming pandemic in the United States.

Recently in a conversation with a recognized specialist on moral philosophy, I was struck by her observation. In speaking about the university students in her classes, she said that she had come to realize that today’s students tend to have only one value and that value is tolerance of all opinions. She went on to say that this left them with a philosophical inability to critique clear examples of immorality.

I believe that what is true of many collegians is also true of many business and professional persons. In their business or professional leadership, there is a bias against addressing moral issues as such, solely out of fear of offending someone’s opinion and thereby being deemed intolerant. The virtue of moral authority has too often been replaced by the weakness of amoral silence. Leadership without a moral base and moral voice is leadership that does not deserve nor inspire loyalty or trust.

In the debacle of the downfall of the Enron Corporation, corporate profit maximization and personal greed drove a good company to self-destruct. It is chiefly the responsibility of all the Senior Officers, Senior Managers and Board Members to monitor the demands of profit maximization and personal greed and to speak clearly and loudly when unethical practices manifest. Furthermore, these same leaders must take action to redirect the company to do what is right, as opposed to what is merely corporately or gainfully expedient. It appears that the sole moral voice in Enron’s senior management was unheeded due to the ignorance, decadence and greed that surrounded it.

Our country is in great need of leaders who will confront corporate moral compromise by declaring “This cannot be.” rather than asking “What’s in it for me?” The malaise of moral laryngitis is highly contagious. Its germ grows most rapidly in cultures that contain high concentrations of moral cowardice or moral abandonment. It can overtake a population in a seemingly unnoticeable fashion. Left unchecked it can be fatal.

(1) Executive Excellence, October 1999, Volume 16, Issue 10, page 3.
(2) Integrity, Stephen L. Carter, Basic Books, 1996, p. 7.
(3) Integrity, pp. 11-12.