82 Ducere Est Servire: THE LEADERSHIP JOURNAL OF DALLAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY In an age of moral relativism, situational ethics, and social Darwinism, it may seem irrelevant to talk about “moral compass.” Some believe that over the past century, psychology, with its focus on the unconscious, has transformed what once were moral judgments into nonjudgmental assessments of behavior, sometimes to the point where individuals are absolved of personal responsibility for the choices they make. However, concerns about the loss of moral responsibility are not new. Throughout history social critics have decried the decay in moral values, especially among members of the young generation.18 One can see in this the necessity of the “moral compass” even after moral absolutes have been removed. Yukl betrays the fundamentally non-spiritual foundation of spiritual leadership when he states, “Spiritual leadership describes how leaders can enhance the intrinsic motivation of followers by creating conditions that increase their sense of spiritual meaning in the work.”19 If the shared goal is worthwhile, this is all well and good. However, the emphasis on spiritual leadership is on the employment of spiritual meaning for utilitarian purposes. This can become an exploitation of a person’s spiritual meaning as easily as it could be an enhancement of it. Such a “spiritual leadership” thus values follower outcomes while neglecting leader formation. In ethical theory, approaches include consequentialist, deontological or virtue-based theories.20 Consequentialists, focusing on the outcomes of ethics, expresses itself through either an egoistic, utilitarian, or altruistic framework.21 At first blush, it might seem that altruism would belong in a virtue theory since one’s conception of selflessness and humility seems implicit in an altruistic outlook. The difference, however, is in the perspective. While altruism disregards the outcomes for the acting agent, it is inextricably linked to the outcomes “for the sake of” another.22 Whether or not the action itself has any effect on the acting agent is irrelevant since the action is egoless. This is not true in the same sense in virtue theory, where the virtues are formative. The focus is not just on “doing,” but on “being” and “becoming.”23 This aligns with the goal of Christian formation and sits neatly within a grace framework. This framework presupposes virtue as that which is both imputed to the Christian through Christ’s
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx