What is principled leadership? Simply whatever a leader decides? Or even
worse, believes? If so, does the content shift with the sands from one
leader to the next? This would seem to invalidate any means of comparing one
leader's rendition from another. That it to say, leaving the "filling in
the blank" to any leader who wants to be principled opens the door
to leadership by convenience under the cover, or subterfuge, of ethics as
a means of self-restraint. Ironically, do-it-yourself principled leadership may
actually be unethical. So it is vital that we ask ourselves, is a
durable definition even possible?
Kant claims that principles that can be universalized without contradiction should be universalized. (Image Source: builddiscipline.com)
