This paper examines two influential approaches to moral leadership through the frameworks of Batson and Tyler. Batson emphasizes individual ethical decision-making, arguing that leaders should motivate followers to act morally for intrinsic reasons aligned with utilitarian principles. Tyler, by contrast, focuses on organizational-level ethical standards that shape individual behavior through policy requirements, reflecting deontological ethics. The paper explores how these competing perspectives relate to broader ethical values, particularly self-interest and self-sacrifice, and concludes that organizational behavior results from both individual moral beliefs and institutional ethical standards.
Batson (as discussed in Chapter 8 of Rhode, 2006) defines moral leadership as the practice of getting people to uphold moral standards and always act ethically. The underlying assumption is that when everyone acts within their moral capacities, both the organization and society as a whole benefit. According to Batson, acting morally means looking out for the needs and well-being of others and acting in their favor whenever our interests and theirs conflict. Moral leadership is fundamentally about getting the people around you to prioritize the needs of others over their own.
For Batson, moral leadership focuses on creating ethical organizational outcomes by promoting ethical decision-making at the individual level. It motivates people to care for the needy, promote justice in society, conduct their businesses within ethical boundaries, pay their taxes, vote, recycle harmful substances, and contribute to charity programs—not because they derive personal benefit from doing so, but because doing so is what is best for society.
Tyler (Chapter 9, Rhode, 2006) agrees with Batson that ethical outcomes can only be realized through ethical decision-making. However, Tyler's focus differs significantly: rather than emphasizing ethical decision-making at the individual level, Tyler is more concerned with ethical decision-making at the organizational level and how it affects the way individuals act and behave in their individual capacities.
While Tyler appreciates the role of motivation in leadership, his approach diverges from Batson's in a crucial way. Batson focuses on leaders motivating followers to act morally because it is the right thing to do, whereas Tyler discusses situations where people act morally not because it is right, but because organizational policy requires them to do so. This distinction reveals an important philosophical alignment: Batson's view aligns more closely with utilitarianism, while Tyler's approach is more inclined toward deontology.
Understanding these two ethical frameworks is essential to grasping the differences between Batson and Tyler. The principle of utilitarianism requires individuals to assess the morality of their actions based on consequences, always selecting the option that yields benefits or utility to the greatest number of people (Hill, 1996). Deontology, by contrast, requires people to assess the rightness or wrongness of their actions not on the basis of consequences or beneficiaries, but on whether or not it is their duty to do so.
Consider the example of a company that uses recycled paper products in packaging. From a utilitarian viewpoint, the organization may have made this decision as a way of conserving natural resources or reducing waste—actions that benefit the broader society. From a deontological view, however, the organization could be doing so simply because it is organizational policy to minimize costs in production. The action is the same, but the ethical reasoning and motivation behind it differ fundamentally. This example illustrates how deontological ethics emphasizes duty and rule-based behavior rather than outcomes.
Several ethical values can be identified from the utilitarian-deontological discussion above. This analysis focuses on two values that appear to be in conflict: self-interest and self-sacrifice.
Self-interest is manifest when an action is driven solely by the desires and needs of the actor, with total disregard for the consequences it would have on others. Tyler's view aligns with this value, insofar as his framework allows for ethical behavior motivated by organizational requirement rather than personal conviction about the greater good.
Self-sacrifice, on the other hand, is about regarding people's needs as equal and being willing to sacrifice one's own desires so that others would benefit (Mackinnon & Fiala, 2014). Self-sacrifice is about putting the needs of others above those of oneself. A perfect example is when someone pays their fair share of taxes so that the government is in a position to cater to the needs of the less privileged. This action embodies Batson's ideal of moral leadership: individuals willingly contribute to the common good even at personal cost.
In response to Tyler's question—do ethical values shape organizational behavior?—the evidence presented suggests a more nuanced answer. Organizational behavior is shaped by both individuals' beliefs about what is wrong and what is right, and the ethical standards set by the organization itself. Neither Batson's individual-focused approach nor Tyler's organizational-focused approach fully captures the reality of moral decision-making in practice. The most complete understanding acknowledges that ethical culture emerges from the interaction between personal conviction and institutional framework.
You’re 91% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.