Dr. Rosenthal's paper was presented in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2009, for a panel on "Leader Development in School of Public Affairs" that included faculty from the University of Virginia, Harvard University, and Texas A&M University. The DC conference, on Leadership and National Security Reform, was cosponsored by The George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service and Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs at Texas A&M University, and the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
The Strategic Studies Institute has published this paper as a chapter in the edited volume, Rethinking Leadership and "Whole of Government" National Security Reform: Problems, Progress, and Prospects (June, 2010). Click on the link to download the book free of charge.
What does one need to know to be a leader in the field of public policy? I want to argue for the centrality of ethics as a basic component of leadership training for anyone pursuing a career in public and international affairs.
If you are a student, please take a moment to ask yourself what you have learned about ethics in your time in the classroom. If you are a teacher or administrator, consider what your curriculum covers in this regard. We know that medical students engage medical ethics, law students study legal ethics, business students take on business ethics, military officers study military ethics, and so on. So let's ask ourselves, what should students and aspiring leaders in public affairs know about ethics to be considered professionals competent to practice?
By ethics, I do not mean simply compliance with law. Compliance is of course an essential part of ethics. But it is only a beginning. Compliance is a floor, a minimum upon which to build. Many actions in government, business, or private life comply with the law but are not optimal from an ethical perspective. Examples are all around us. British members of parliament may not have broken laws when they used expense accounts to bill tax payers for lifestyle enhancements such as moat cleaning, the upkeep of expensive second homes, or the rental of adult movies. But surely this kind of behavior was wrong. In more serious policy matters, it may well be that most of our major banks and financial institutions were in full compliance with the law when it came to the management of credit default swaps and derivative trading. Yet something went very wrong in the area of risk and responsibility. There are many things we can do and still be in compliance with law—but some of them are wrong. Ethical reasoning helps us make these distinctions.
The discipline of ethics begins with Socrates' question: How should one live? Ethics is about choice. What values guide us? What standards do we use? What principles are at stake? And how do we choose between them? An ethical approach to a problem will inquire about ends (goals) and means (the instruments we use to achieve these goals) and the relationship between the two.
Ethical reasoning is the process of raising awareness of moral claims and applying principles to arising circumstances. Ethical reasoning implies an interrogation of the moral claims that surround us rather than a mere listing of do's and don'ts. In a word, ethical inquiry is proactive rather than passive.
The philosopher Simon Blackburn writes that ethics takes as its starting point that: "Human beings are ethical animals … we grade and evaluate, and compare and admire, and claim and justify … Events endlessly adjust our sense of responsibility, our guilt and our shame, and our sense of our own worth and that of others."1
According to Blackburn, ethical inquiry is normative in the sense that it suggests "norms." Norms are what we consider "expected and required" behavior. We all experience functional norms. For example, in the United States, drivers stay on the right-hand side of the road; in the United Kingdom, drivers keep to the left. We also experience moral norms. A moral norm would consist of an expectation such as nondiscrimination in the workplace or the requirement to respect the needs of the most vulnerable members of society (e.g. children, elderly and the infirm). Moral norms are aspirational and prescriptive rather than functional and descriptive—they paint the "ought" rather than the "is." It is this type of norm that I want to focus on in this essay.
A cautionary note is necessary here. Norms, expectations, and ethical claims depend deeply on context. No single normative theory or formula will suffice across different types of examples. One of the great ethicists of recent memory, Isaiah Berlin, famously gave up his Oxford chair in normative theory, so the story goes, because he felt he had no single normative theory to purvey. Berlin did not pretend to offer a grand theory that would meet the test of the many different types of cases he was concerned with.2
Berlin's work reminds us that normative inquiry is a non-perfectionist art. The first lesson of ethics is that values overlap and conflict. The single-minded pursuit of any particular virtue can subvert a competing virtue. So as we often see, freedom can conflict with order, justice with mercy, and truth with loyalty. In international affairs, peace may be our goal, but we cannot ignore the need to confront aggression. Some may chant "no more war." These same people may also chant "never again genocide." Sometimes, tragically and unavoidably, force is needed to prevent harm. Here, and in countless similar examples, we see norms clashing. Berlin lets us know that these clashes happen more often than not.
A pesar de nuestra falta de una teoría o fórmula única, Berlin y otros ofrecen un marco para el razonamiento ético. Inspirándome en Berlin y otros pragmatistas, considero este marco como una ética en tres dimensiones.
The first dimension focuses on the decision maker—the actor or the agent who makes a choice. We can and should evaluate the acts of individuals, be they presidents, ministers, official representatives, CEOs, community leaders, advocates, employees, consumers or citizens. Each has a role as an autonomous actor.
At first glance, the idea of the autonomous actor seems simple and straightforward. However, we should bear in mind that identity is fluid not static. Most individuals have multiple identities. Consider an example like the following. A single individual could say: I am British. I am a Muslim. I am a woman. I am a professor. I am a feminist. Clearly, many sets of values make up a composite yet single-actor identity in an example like this. Each element of one's identity plays an important role in determining which values and allegiances among many may have priority. Claims of national loyalty, religious obligation, professional codes of conduct, and solidarity around an issue of social justice and concern might all come into play. This is the way life is actually lived, isn't it?3
In addition to single actors, a discussion of agency must also consider the identity, values, and acts of collective actors such as states, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations. One of the most important trends of our time is the growing power of non-state actors—especially multinational corporations. Wal-Mart, Microsoft and other companies of this size and scope rival the capacities of many states in terms of their economic, political and social reach. It is therefore both necessary and proper to ask and answer questions relating to the moral choices of corporate entities. All are moral agents.
The second dimension of ethics has to do with the systems, social arrangements, and conditions that define our range of choices. In short, we need to examine the "rules of the game" by which we live and make decisions. We all live within sets of norms and expectations—some more fair and just than others. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this dimension is to show you examples of when "rational" choices within a set of arrangements yield "bad" or less-than-desirable results. In other words, in some systems, when you do the "right thing" within the system, the net result is sub-optimal.
Here I am thinking of a common example of consumer behavior. When shopping for clothes, it usually makes sense for you to buy the least expensive shirt available when quality between competing options is equal. But because of the supply chain of the global economy, that shirt may be produced in a sweatshop that runs on child labor. Buying the least expensive shirt of equal quality might be rational according to market design—yet the result might be ethically troubling.
This problem exists on many levels of policy and institutional design. For example, consider the nuclear weapons doctrine of MAD—mutual assured destruction. The entire strategic framework is based on the idea of reciprocal threat. Within this system, to insure stability, the most rational thing to do is to make an immoral threat (and be prepared to carry it out).
Clearly, there is something deeply troubling about MAD. It would seem to me to be a worthy goal to try to create frameworks and policies where the "rational" thing to do would be more benign than to make a threat of mutual assured destruction. In brief then, this second dimension calls attention to the fact that we live within institutions, systems, and social arrangements of human design. The rules, norms, and conditions of these arrangements should be subject to ethical evaluation.
The third dimension of ethics is the assertion that we often have the opportunity to improve our situation—to do better. One way to think of this is to consider a standard ethics scenario like this: My mother is sick. I cannot afford medicine. So I steal the medicine from a pharmacy whose managers will not even notice that it is gone. Is stealing the medicine in this circumstance the right thing or the wrong thing to do?
We can discuss this case in terms of my decision as a moral agent—whether I am a thief and villain, a rescuer and a hero, or both. Ethical questions are frequently raised as dilemmas such as this one. In many situations, there is a genuine need to choose between two competing and compelling claims, and ethical reasoning can help to sort these out. But we can also expand the inquiry to ask a broader question beyond the narrow question of whether to steal or not to steal. We can also ask: What kind of community denies medicine to sick people who cannot afford it? Is there something unfair or unethical about this system?
To further illustrate this third dimension, it is useful to note the distinction that Andrew Carnegie drew between charity and philanthropy.4 Charity, according to Carnegie, is the duty to attend to immediate and acute human suffering. Charity translates to feeding the hungry, tending to the sick and destitute, providing relief to victims of natural and man made disasters, and giving shelter to the homeless. Philanthropy is something different—it is an endeavor that reaches above and beyond the imperatives of charity. Philanthropy explores new ways of living, new ideas and institutions to improve society.
While this may sound abstract, Carnegie's philanthropy was specific and practical. He addressed the societal-level problem of education by suggesting and then providing the infrastructure for two institutions we now take for granted: the public library and the teacher pension system. Carnegie believed that every person should have access to knowledge. Universal literacy and educational opportunity would be possible by supporting a free public library system which he began to do all across the United States and to a much lesser extent, the United Kingdom (his place of birth). In his lifetime, Carnegie provided funds to build more than 2500 public library buildings.
Carnegie's library venture was an extraordinary feat totaling $41 million dollars, easily several billion in today's dollars. Yet tellingly, he asked municipal leaders to be partners in the enterprise by providing the books and the funds for upkeep. Carnegie would build the buildings, but communities would be responsible for whatever would happen next. Carnegie thought that if these institutions had real value, communities would invest in them rather than merely accept them passively as gifts. Similarly, when he decided to provide the funds to build Carnegie Hall in New York City, he built the structure in all its grandeur but he did not leave an endowment for maintenance. He believed that if the music hall had genuine value, its patrons—those who benefitted from it—would contribute to its upkeep.
Carnegie also created the first teacher pension institution—now known as TIAA-CREF—to help professionalize the vocation of teaching. If teachers were undervalued, as some surmised, then here was an institution that would contribute to improvement of the educational system by supporting teachers. The idea was simple. But its ramifications were profound. With proper pay and retirements benefits enabled by the new pension system, teaching would become a fully modern profession.
Similarly, when it came to politics, Carnegie believed that new institutions could improve public policy. Specifically, as an advocate for the peaceful resolution of international conflicts and disputes, Carnegie supported the mediation and arbitration movement that grew out of Geneva in the mid-19th century. Again, the idea was elegant in its simplicity and grandeur. Just as we have legal mechanisms to arbitrate disputes in domestic society, so too can we have mechanisms in international society for the same purpose. The concept of international law and organization was gaining momentum at the beginning of the 20th century—the movement merely needed new institutions to give it shape and force. In this spirit, Carnegie financed the building of the Peace Palace at The Hague, supported the establishment of the International Court of Justice, and lobbied for the establishment of the League of Nations. Carnegie devoted much of his philanthropy—and his personal energy—to promoting these new institutions and the ideas behind them.
So then the third dimension of ethics expands the range of choices we have in front of us. It is about creating new possibilities. I like to picture this idea in its cartoon form. For me, it is comes to life in the character of Bugs Bunny. The narrative is familiar. Our hero gets into trouble and runs away from a threatening pursuer. But he is eventually backed into a corner. There is no escape. What does he do? He reaches into his pocket and miraculously pulls out a pen or marker. He then proceeds to draw a picture of a window on the blank wall. The image of the window becomes real. Then he climbs out. Sometimes we do face genuine dilemmas—and the lines we draw on the wall remain lines. But other times we can and should imagine better options.
¿Cómo relacionamos entonces esta comprensión de las tres dimensiones de la ética con el liderazgo? El liderazgo es un tema tan vasto como la ética, así que empecemos con algunos conceptos sencillos. En su nuevo libro George Washington on Leadership, Richard Brookhiser describe el liderazgo como "conocerse a uno mismo, saber adónde se quiere ir y luego llevar a los demás a ese nuevo lugar".5 Hay muchas maneras de liderar; hay muchos estilos e innumerables ejemplos que estudiar. Una forma de centrar nuestro análisis es examinar en detalle la ecuación fines/medios/consecuencias, como sugiere Brookhiser. Esto nos lleva a plantearnos tres preguntas: ¿Cuál es el objetivo? ¿Qué medios utilizaremos para alcanzarlo? ¿Y qué tipo de concesiones y compromisos hay que hacer por el camino?
Las observaciones de Brookhiser me recuerdan una de mis clases favoritas de historia política estadounidense. La conferencia fue impartida por el profesor Frank Freidel, biógrafo de Franklin Roosevelt. Su tema era el estilo de liderazgo de Roosevelt. El profesor Freidel dibujó una simple X en la parte superior/central de la pizarra. Luego trazó una línea en zigzag desde la parte inferior de la pizarra hasta la parte superior. Explicó que Roosevelt se consideraba como un marinero que navega contra el viento. El destino era seguro: el punto fijo representado por la X. Cada zigzag representaba una virada de ida y vuelta necesaria para acercarse a la meta.
Como sabe cualquier marinero, en un barco de vela no se puede navegar directamente contra el viento. Si intentas navegar directamente hacia el viento, las velas se agitan inútilmente, el barco se estanca y no puedes avanzar. Es lo que los marineros llaman "planchas". Así que, como cualquier timonel experimentado, Roosevelt comprendió la necesidad de virar de un lado a otro. Cada virada podía significar un compromiso incierto e incómodo. A veces tenía que virar horizontalmente sólo para mantener sus avances anteriores. Pero cada compromiso era necesario para seguir avanzando contra los vientos contrarios que le harían retroceder sin piedad o le desviarían de su rumbo.
Si aceptamos que el liderazgo se basa en objetivos y en compromisos, veremos que la ética no debería ser un aspecto periférico de ningún plan de estudios de política pública ni de ningún programa de desarrollo del liderazgo. La ética no es un lujo ni un obstáculo que haya que superar. Es fundamental para la toma de decisiones y el propio liderazgo.
En su libro Ethics as Practice, Hugh LaFollette explica que la ética, como la medicina, es un arte práctico.6 Del mismo modo que estudiamos medicina no sólo para aprender sobre el cuerpo y sus funciones, sino para mejorar nuestra salud, también estudiamos ética no sólo para adquirir conocimientos filosóficos, sino para mejorar nuestras condiciones de vida. La ética nos ayuda a comprender lo que realmente valoramos y cómo conectarlo con la práctica de nuestra vida cotidiana, nuestras elecciones individuales y las políticas de las instituciones de las que formamos parte.
Los pragmáticos, al igual que los pluralistas, sostienen que lo moral y lo práctico están inextricablemente unidos. Permítanme darles un ejemplo extraído de la historia de mi institución, Carnegie Council, que fue fundada en 1914 por Andrew Carnegie como una de sus dotaciones para la paz. Su propósito entonces, como lo es ahora, es ser un recurso educativo -un centro de ideas y acción- para los líderes de las comunidades académica y política. En 1937, mi predecesor al frente del Consejo, Henry Atkinson, escribió sobre el futuro del movimiento pacifista:
Al citar al Dr. Cabot, Atkinson comprendió que la ética es intrínseca a lo que hacemos, no extrínseca. Ningún proyecto es sostenible si se construye sobre supuestos erróneos. Nada bueno, y desde luego nada grande, puede construirse sobre la ignorancia, la percepción errónea o el idealismo equivocado. Un compromiso moral sin sentido del realismo, un sentido de cómo funcionan realmente las cosas, es una receta para el desastre. Y cualquier plan práctico sin ningún sentido de los valores que deben sustentarlo está igualmente condenado al fracaso.
Por tanto, la ética y el liderazgo se entienden mejor como una tarea realista. Los realistas se centran en el poder y los intereses como elementos clave del comportamiento humano. A menudo se cita a los generales atenienses de La guerra del Peloponeso de Tucídides como la autoridad en este punto: "Los fuertes hacen lo que quieren y los débiles lo que deben". Descuidamos esta idea básica sobre el poder por nuestra cuenta y riesgo.
Sin embargo, una vez aclarado este punto, los realistas sofisticados comprenderán también que, aunque el afán de poder y la maximización de los intereses explican muchas cosas, el concepto de interés es a menudo algo más que la acumulación y el ejercicio del poder. Los intereses no siempre son evidentes. Pueden ser complejos, diversos y difíciles de aislar. También hay límites obvios al poder. Tucídides y sus discípulos realistas Maquiavelo y Hobbes se apresuraron a reconocer que algunos resultados no pueden lograrse únicamente mediante la fuerza bruta, y que el ejercicio del poder siempre suscita los fantasmas de la extralimitación y la corrupción.
Al comprender las complejidades del poder, los realistas son quizá los mejores defensores del concepto de interés propio ilustrado. En pocas palabras, el interés propio ilustrado comienza con nuestras propias necesidades, pero también tiene en cuenta las necesidades y los intereses de los demás.
Cualquier buen realista le dirá que tener en cuenta los intereses de los demás no es altruismo. Más bien es realismo en estado puro. En su libro Moral Clarity Susan Neiman escribe: "Hobbes... imagina un estado de naturaleza cuyas hordas salvajes son lo suficientemente racionales como para detener su carrera hacia el día del juicio final aceptando obedecer a cualquier soberano que evite más guerras"8 Neiman nos recuerda a través del ejemplo de Hobbes que incluso en la versión más oscura y cruda de la guerra de todos contra todos, prevalece alguna noción de racionalidad. Se reconocen los límites. La cooperación se hace posible al ceder ante el poder supremo del leviatán. En el estado de naturaleza hobbesiano, el conflicto tiene sus límites y la cooperación en torno al interés propio ilustrado, aunque sea de forma limitada, es una estrategia de supervivencia.
La literatura reciente sobre biología evolutiva y neurociencia investiga la noción de que el interés propio ilustrado puede estar "cableado" como una cuestión de selección natural e instinto de supervivencia. El libro de Robert Wright Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny explorala idea de que la historia y la interacción humanas pueden explicarse mejor observando acuerdos cooperativos de suma no nula, en los que todos ganan, en lugar de competiciones de suma cero, en las que el ganador se lo lleva todo. Escribe:
El resultado es un mundo de estructuras cooperativas que benefician a la mayoría de las personas la mayor parte del tiempo. La neurociencia empieza a mostrarnos que la "voluntad de poder" puede tener un compañero en la "cooperación" como mecanismo biológico para mejorar las perspectivas de supervivencia.
Discernir adecuadamente el poder y los intereses en un mundo globalizado y altamente interdependiente no es un asunto menor. Es el primer requisito del liderazgo. Las tres dimensiones de la ética que acabamos de analizar proporcionan un marco para este discernimiento. Una vez que nos hemos orientado, es necesario articular los principios básicos de nuestra preocupación ética. Según mi experiencia, hay tres principios básicos que tienen resonancia universal, aunque las interpretaciones de cada uno de ellos difieran mucho según la época, el lugar y las circunstancias. Estos principios son: pluralismo, derechos y equidad. Cada principio proporciona un punto de referencia a partir del cual podemos ensayar argumentos con nosotros mismos y con los demás, y luego tomar decisiones éticamente informadas.
Pluralism begins with appreciation for diversity while recognizing what is common in the human experience. A value such as self-interest and or a moral sentiment such as honor or fairness will develop differently according to time, place, and circumstance. Yet there is something that binds us—and that "something" is the capacity to enter into a value system that is not our own.
Simon Blackburn, James Rachels and other philosophers make this point by citing an example from Herodotus' Histories regarding funeral customs.10 We know that in some societies the most common funeral custom is to bury the dead. In other societies it is customary to burn the dead. In still others, the custom is to eat the dead. Members of each society think that their custom is best, and that others are misguided or worse. The point here is not to say that one's own customs are always superior. Nor is the point the opposite: that all customs are relative and are purely matters of convenience. Rather, the point of this example is that there is a central truth—respect for the dead—that takes different forms in different circumstances.
Pluralism's first argument is with monism. Monists are purveyors of moral clarity, single-minded advocates of a truth as they see it. As such monists adhere to familiar custom and dogma, the validity of which his based on faith and will remain beyond human reason and reach. Monists neglect the idea that our understanding of the truth may change over time, especially in light of new information and experience. Monists will resist the idea that truths are many, not one, and that while we often agree on those verifiable observations we call facts, we often do not agree on their meaning. Enlightened realists remind us that humility is required in the face of conviction. Pluralists remind us that, ironically, the one thing we should agree upon is the possibility that we can be wrong. The realist and pluralist point of view does not resonate with monists who are more comfortable in the waters of "moral clarity."
We feel the full weight of pluralism when we view a great work of art or read a classic text. Through these encounters, we can understand the experiences and the value systems of others. We enter into another world and experience part of it as others do. Pluralism is a way to transcend the false dichotomy of monism and relativism. Monism holds that "only one set of values is true, all others are false." Relativism holds that "my values are mine, yours are yours, and if we clash, too bad, neither of us can claim to be right."11 Most of us live in that interesting place in between—and this is the territory of the pluralist.
Reinhold Niebuhr has gained much attention recently as a favorite philosopher of the current president. This is no coincidence, as President Obama has charted a course that veers away from black-and-white, for us or against us, arguments favored by President Bush. The columnist David Brooks captured the Niebuhrian spirit in 2002 in an aptly titled Atlantic magazine article "A Man on a Gray Horse."12 The true moral course, according to Niebuhr, is often found in uneasy compromises and in shades of gray. The grayness of the horse is a reminder that we are far from pure; our history shows us that we sometimes act unjustly and impurely in our pursuit of justice. Niebuhr reminded us that even the "good war" ended with the atomic incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Brooks summarizes Niebuhr's point succinctly: "We should not become intoxicated with our own goodness."
In addition to the dangers of monism, pluralism also addresses the challenges of relativism. Relativism is the idea that every moral claim is just as good as any other. The well-worn example is, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." One can try to make that argument; but it will not alter the fact that terrorism is the random slaying of innocent people. Another tired relativist argument is that norms are merely the reflection of the interests of the power actors who make the rules and stand to gain from their enforcement. While one may make this argument too, it will not alter the fact that freedom makes no sense without order, and that power must be deployed to insure order. Power considerations cannot be wished away; and the actions of powerful actors should not be dismissed out of hand as morally suspect.
Pluralists hold firm against cynicism. They contend that it is both possible and necessary to sort out competing claims. Pluralists observe that every society has strongly developed codes of duty and restraint that promote some notion of human well being. Part of what makes us human is our capacity to understand these norms, how they developed, and why—even if we disagree with them strongly. This open approach enhances the prospects for moral argument.
Isaiah Berlin gives us a classic example of how and why pluralism is not relativism. He writes:
Pluralism is not relativism because Berlin first empathizes, he seeks to understand the Nazi worldview on its own terms, and then he engages in moral argument to refute it.
Another place to plant the flag against relativism is on the high ground of the idea of "rights." By rights we mean protections and entitlements in relation to duties and responsibilities. Rights arguments are put forward against arguments of utility. According to rights theorists from Kant to Jefferson and beyond, there is something fundamental about being human (an inalienable characteristic) that prohibits any person as being treated as something merely "useful," as a means to an end.
The source of human rights is an unending debate. However, I am persuaded by pragmatists like Judith Shklar, Amy Gutmann, and Michael Ignatieff who argue that in the end, foundational arguments may not really matter.14 Empirical observation of the need for human rights and the work that human rights arguments do may be sufficient. After all, the mass murders of the twentieth century are proof of the need for protection. Think of the body counts under the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. The facts of the genocides and gulags in such recent memory should be sufficient to make the case that protections are needed. Duties to provide protection therefore follow.
Rights claims raise questions about assignment of responsibilities that are not always clear. One way to think about assignment of responsibilities is to consider rights claims in terms of "perfect" and "imperfect" obligations. Perfect obligations are specific and direct. For example, we have the perfect obligation not to torture. Imperfect obligations are more general, less specific, and inexactly targeted. So in the case of torture, there is the requirement to "to consider the ways and means through which torture can be prevented."15
Although this is not a perfect illustration of the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, consider the infamous case of Kitty Genovese. Kitty Genovese was a 28-year old woman who lived in Kew Gardens Queens in 1964. One night on her way home, she was stabbed several times by an unknown assailant and left to die. Her case became widely known because it was alleged that 38 people passed her by as she lay dying in the street. No one helped her. Presumably, each of the 38 passers-by thought someone else would help, or they didn't want to get involved. Whatever the precise details, this scenario helps to elucidate the point about perfect and imperfect duties. We all share the basic duty not to harm. But we also share the basic duty not to allow the conditions of harm, and that when harm is done, to mitigate the effects of it. To echo a previous point, the exercise of imperfect duty is far from altruism. It is in our enlightened self-interest to live in a community where people are not left to die in the streets.
In looking at public policy today, we see several obvious cases where both our direct and indirect participation in the mitigation of harms is inevitable. As participants in the global economy, the global environment and global security, we act both directly as agents and indirectly as bystanders. When we consume and travel, we engage in a system that provides benefits and places burdens. There is really no place to hide. As implicated agents in these social arrangements, our actions will be judged accordingly.
The third principle to consider is fairness. Ideas about fairness are highly subjective and heavily influenced by circumstances. As I have written elsewhere with my co-author Ethan Kapstein, one of the most useful models for illustrating fairness considerations is the Ultimatum Game (UG).16 In the game, two players have the opportunity to divide a pot of money. A proposer (P) makes an offer to a Respondent (R) over how a pot of money should be divided. R can either accept P's offer—in which case the money is divided as P proposed—or R can reject the offer, in which case both players walk away with nothing.
The classic rational actor model of behavior predicts that, in such cases, the split might be something along the lines of 99:1; that is, P would offer R 1 unit while keeping 99 for himself. Since we can usually count on profit-maximizing behavior, this division makes both parties better off and so there is no reason for R to reject it. Maximization strategies therefore lead to unequal divisions of a given pie.
But behavioral economists, repeating the UG in a variety of countries and under and a variety of conditions, have observed a puzzling result. When R's are offered an amount that they consider to be "unfair" they reject it—they would prefer nothing to something. Indeed, knowing that "unfair" offers are likely to be rejected, P's routinely offer about one-half the pot at the outset, and when asked why they do so they normally answer that "this seems fair."
Researchers have drawn several significant findings from the UG, all of which are relevant to the study of moral considerations in world politics. First, P's adopt moral reasoning or other-regarding behavior out of their self-interest. Proposers who do not care about what others think must nonetheless fear rejection of an "unfair" offer and the absence of any payoff whatsoever. The adoption of "fairness considerations" is therefore efficiency enhancing to the extent that it leads to an agreement and thus an increase in welfare for both of the agents.17
Second, the Proposer's concern with achieving an equitable or fair result arises in part from uncertainty about how R will respond to its offer. If P knows that R will willingly accept a greedy offer, P will be much more inclined to propose a lopsided division. Not knowing R's response ex ante, P offers the amount that intuitively seems to be fair (e.g. equal division).
Returning to our theme of enlightened self-interest, fairness and reciprocity suggest that what is good for you is often linked to be what is good for others involved. This is the nature of complex problems and decisions. Taken to the global level, individual interests must be seen in terms of complex interdependence, international norms, and global responsibilities.
Aunque espero que estas observaciones les hayan aportado ideas positivas sobre el liderazgo, también espero que no hayan prometido demasiado. Es importante concluir con un sentido de realismo que nos recuerde los límites de los logros humanos y los peligros de asumir resultados armoniosos. Las buenas intenciones nunca son suficientes. Los líderes deben atender siempre a las consecuencias. Los imperativos morales suelen entrar en conflicto. Los líderes deben tomar decisiones difíciles e imperfectas. La definición literal de utopía significa "ningún lugar". La utopía no existe. Y como todos saben por la historia, ha sido la búsqueda de la utopía -de sociedades y resultados perfectos- lo que ha conducido a los peores episodios de la historia de la humanidad.
Hay mucho de cierto en dichos comunes como "el liderazgo es un trabajo de mal tiempo" y las organizaciones "se pudren de la cabeza para abajo". Las cargas que pesan sobre los líderes les obligan a ser visionarios y ejemplares y, sin embargo, nunca pueden ni deben aspirar a la perfección. La ética desempeña un papel central en la navegación entre la visión ideal y las realidades de la vida cotidiana. La ética es un proceso, una reflexión constante sobre aspiraciones y compromisos. Corresponde a los líderes establecer su visión normativa y medir su comportamiento en consecuencia. ¿Cuáles son mis objetivos? ¿Cuáles son mis valores fundamentales? ¿Y qué concesiones estoy dispuesto a hacer? Estas preguntas nunca desaparecen.
Los gurús de la gestión se apresuran a señalar que si no intentamos mejorar, lo más seguro es que empeoremos. El compromiso con nuestras aspiraciones más elevadas, la apertura y la autocorrección son la esencia de la ética en el liderazgo. Al sugerir tres dimensiones como puntos de entrada a la indagación ética -nuestro papel como agentes morales, como participantes en las instituciones en las que vivimos y como arquitectos de nuevas instituciones que definirán nuestro futuro- espero haberles dado una idea de la importancia práctica de la ética. Y al ofrecer los principios del pluralismo, los derechos y la equidad como un lugar para plantar una bandera -o para apuntar su fuego- espero haberles dado un marco que les capacite y les guíe en un viaje hacia el liderazgo basado en principios.
NOTAS
1 Simon Blackburn, Ética: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
2 Ryan Patrick Hanley, "Berlín y la Historia", en George Crowder y Henry Hardy, eds., The One and the Many, 2007, Nueva York: Prometheus Books, 2007, pp. 159-180.
3 Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence, Nueva York: W.W. Norton, 2006.
4 David Nasaw, Andrew Carnegie, Nueva York: Penguin Press, 2006.
5 Richard Brookhiser, George Washington on Leadership, Nueva York: Basic Books, 2008.
6 Hugh LaFollette, The Practice of Ethics, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
7 Henry Atkinson, Prelude to Peace, Nueva York: Harper & Brothers, 1937, p. 3.
8 Susan Nieman, Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists, Orlando, FL: Harcourt, 2008, p. 30.
9 Robert Wright, Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Nueva York: Pantheon Books, 2000, p. 5.
10 James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy: Cuarta edición, Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 16-17.
11 Isaiah Berlin, "The First and the Last", New York Review of Books, 14 de mayo de 1997, p. 11.
12 David Brooks, "A Man on a Gray Horse", Atlantic, septiembre de 2002.
13 Isaiah Berlin, "The First and the Last", New York Review of Books, 14 de mayo de 1997, p. 10.
14 Judith Shklar, "The Liberalism of Fear", en Nancy L. Rosenblum, ed., Liberalism and the Moral Life, Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1989; y Michael Ignatieff y Amy Gutmann, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.
15 Amartya Sen, "Elements of a Theory of Human Rights", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2004.
16 Ethan B. Kapstein y Joel H. Rosenthal, "Ethics in International Affairs: An Assessment", en Ethics and International Affairs, Londres: Ashgate, 2009.
17 Ethan B. Kapstein, Economic Justice in an Unfair World, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.