Author name: Rosemary Mosco

here is a message from instructor and it might help

I’m still getting questions concerning selection of a term paper topic.

Let me throw out two general areas, both drawing a GREAT DEAL of

interest at this time. You should be able to formulate a very interesting

paper from either of these areas very nicely. Either one might be fruitfully

pursued with or without stress on a focal leader. These could be papers

of true excellence!

The first area deals with the focus of this course very directly: ethical

leadership and ethics in leadership. No one seems to doubt the important

linkages of leadership and ethics. However, in recent years some have

questioned whether the relationship is simple: perhaps the relationship is

like an inverted U, or haystack. That is, as formal emphasis on ethics increases,

above a certain level there may actually be decreases in performance or satisfaction.

These suggestions relate to increased stress or limited attention, not to the desirability

of ethics per se. Is there some truth to this assertion? Would it be true for all ethical areas? Are there remedies?

Second, as the textbook clearly states, leadership involves two way influences. The

influence of follower(s) upon leaders has been neglected in research. It is now getting greater

attention. What are these reciprocal influences? Just HOW do they involve ethics? What might moderate these

influence linkages?

While I am delighted that many of you are off to a good start on your term papers,

I am a little concerned that some of you seem to be delaying the choice of a topic.

Here are some other ideas.

Most students will (eventually) probably follow the suggested line of reasoning:

find a particular topic and/or leader as focus, and then diligently apply the relevant

concepts and theory pertaining to leadership and to ethics. This is fine – the expected

route. Many good papers should come from this approach. Yet it is not the only approach.

One might also look at a prominent and perplexing issue and examine it in light of the

relevant concepts and theories. E.g., what would leadership be like in the national opioid

crisis? Which specific institutions (public or private) might provide the leaders or leadership?

Will effective leadership in this crisis require some particular style? Or some particular

ethical approach? Does the very labeling itself (by press, government, and the AMA) of the issue

as a “crisis” change the situation regarding effective leadership? The same sort of questions might apply to a myriad of issues.

The list of relevant questions could go on and on. The list of perplexing issues to analyze is also

quite long. Such a perplexing issue may be very local as well – even in your own organization.

Use some creative thought.

Let me give you a link here from today’s WALL STREET JOURNAL – just to whet your thought!

Leadership in our IT rich age requires some behaviors and skills. While technology itself is

likely not often the critical factor, the interaction of people (individuals and teams) with technologies

can be a source of serious competitive advantage. Where and how does leadership play into this?

That is what the link is about: http://partners.wsj.com/accenture/breaking-through/

IBM, as well as many other companies, universities, and think tanks have also explored these issues in depth.

You must apply the relevant concepts and theory form the course, and these are mostly contemporary and derived from study of conventional Western institutions and people.

However, let me reiterate also the value of papers that use this material to study leadership in unconventional institutions or situations: Indian tribes, mobsters, isolated communities, proactive countertrade and the great “invisible banks” of Asia. If our cherished theory breaks down in this effort, simply note that and interpret it; that itself is a contribution. Also, of course, a focal leader for your paper need not be a “good guy.”

Finally, while you must use modern theory for analysis, you can try if you dare to apply it to historical leaders and situations. Such applications are not easy, but they are often very interesting and instructive. The possibilities are limitless. For example, as the French Revolution came to an end, a military force lead by Napoleon and his lieutenants essentially seized power, abolishing the authority of both the executive Directory and the parliamentary bodies of France in a military coup. The real genius behind the coup, however, was that old perpetual survivor, Talleyrand. Both Napoleon and Talleyrand would make good focal leaders.

For those with some interest in the way American industry and society developed, the traditionally celebrated leaders make good choices: the duPont’s, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford were arguably not only the richest men of their day, but the most influential leaders. Although not extraordinarily wealthy, J. P. Morgan was perhaps the most powerful and influential leader of them all. Why are power and leadership so seldom discussed together? Why are there no women on this list? Just who were the extraordinarily influential women in that day? Yes! They were there. They were always there.

One last thought. Skepticism is often healthy. If you can’t be skeptical in grad school, when can you do it? Some have suggested that leadership cannot really be developed, that it is a romantic (but sometimes useful) idea, an attribution, or even that our understanding of leadership has NOT improved over the last three thousand years. Dig into these ideas and you will find yourself in good company – with names like Simon, Drucker, Meindl, Weick. (If you dug far enough you might even find Mankelwicz somewhere in the pack.)