Bribery, extortion and “morally ambiguous” leadership in organizations
| Pages | 1027-1046 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-05-2020-0092 |
| Published date | 14 July 2020 |
| Date | 14 July 2020 |
| Author | Michel Dion |
| Subject Matter | Financial crime,Financial risk/company failure |
Bribery, extortion and “morally
ambiguous”leadership
in organizations
Michel Dion
École de Gestion, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –The purposeof this paper is to examine how four styles of “morally ambiguous”leadershipcould
have a philosophical basis, while relatively contributing to efficiently prevent bribery and extortion in the
organizationallife.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper identifies four stylesof morally ambiguous leadership in
taking philosophically based representations of “sociopolitical saviors”into account: “occasionally cruel
saviors”(NiccolòMachiavelli); “occasionally compassionate saviors”(AdamSmith),; “socially conformist and
compassionate”saviors (David Hume); and “revolutionary and implicitly compassionate”saviors (Hannah
Arendt). Morallyambiguous leaders choose paradoxical ways to assumetheir moral responsibility. They use
paradoxicalstrategies to prevent bribery and extortion in the organizationallife.
Findings –The philosophical basis of those styles of morally ambiguous leadership unveils two basic
antagonisms: the antagonism between cruelty and compassion; and the antagonism between social
conformism and revolutionaryspirit. The axis of power (Machiavelli) does not allow any connectionbetween
both antagonisms. The axis of self-interest (Smith) shows an intermediary positioning in both antagonisms
(relatively compassionate, implicitly revolutionary). The axis of social conformism/compassion (Hume)and
the axis of revolutionary spirit/compassion (Arendt) make leaders deepen their paradoxical positionings
about moralissues.
Research limitations/implications –The four styles of morally ambiguousleadership have not been
empirically assessed. Moreover, the analysis of Eastern and Western philosophies could allow decision-
makers to identityother philosophically based and morally ambiguouspositionings about moral issues. Other
philosophies could also unveil further kinds of antagonisms that could be applied to prevention strategies
againstbribery and extortion schemes.
Originality/value –The paper presentsa philosophically based analysis of morally ambiguousleadership
and its potentialimpact on prevention strategies against bribery and extortionschemes.
Keywords Bribery, Extortion, Moral ambiguities, Leadership, Machiavelli, Smith, Hume, Arendt
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Business managers could adopt various leadership styles, depending on circumstances. An
inner transformation could allow them to realize different values and virtues throughout
their professional career. Their abilities for compassion could be used to some extent while
taking selfish decisions.Inner transformation could make possible to think and act out of the
box. In doing so, businessmanagers could widen the scope of their compassion (Kanov et al.,
2004;Grant, 2008). Businessleaders are the most influential actors of organizational life and
should rightly respond to all stakeholders’moral expectations. Otherwise, they could
undermine the notion of a “corporate moral responsibility”(Dubbink and Smith, 2011). But
the various dimensions of leadership can be relatively compatible with different ethical
theories (Lawton and P
aez, 2015, p. 646). Consciously or not, leaders could embrace
Leadership in
organizations
1027
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.27 No. 4, 2020
pp. 1027-1046
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-05-2020-0092
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-0790.htm
philosophically based principles of decision that have been historically defined by ethical
theories. Ethical theories try to circumscribe the frontiers between ethical and unethical
actions. However, theyevolve in grey areas. Some authors believe that ethical neutralitycan
be considered as a philosophical positioning about moral issues. “Ethically silent leaders”
are “neither strong ethical nor strong unethical leaders”(Treviño and Brown, 2004, p. 76).
They are “ethically neutral leaders”, who are “neither clearly ethical nor clearly unethical”
(Treviño et al., 2003, p. 11). Nonetheless, “ethical silence”and “ethical neutrality”are not
necessarily synonymous. Beingethically neutral is not being “amoral”, that is, indifferent to
moral issues. Rather, ethical neutrality refers to the daily use of ethical criteria and
principles for decision-making. It unveils either the vagueness of ethical criteria/principles,
or their weak usefulness. Ethical neutrality is an issue of moral convictions and values.
Being “ethically silent”means that a silence can be ethically based. Being silent about our
ethical criteria and principles for decision-making can mirror our incapacity to define and
apply them in daily life. However, we can reasonably expect that ethically neutral and
ethically silent leaders are not deeply involved in ethical decision-making processes.
“Morally ambiguous”leadersdo not necessarily embrace moral neutrality or ethicalsilence.
Of course, any leader could have committed “moral failures”(Price, 2000). However,
assessing “morally ambiguous”leadership is not checking to what extent leaders regularly
take ethical/unethical decisions. Rather, “morally ambiguous”leadership depends on the
unclear, paradoxical and often contradictory connection between leader’s ethical criteria/
principles of decision and concrete actions. Followers could observe morally ambiguous
positioning of their leaders.
The purpose of this paper is to examine how various styles of “morally ambiguous”
leadership could have a philosophical basis, while strengthening a relative propensity to
efficiently prevent bribery and extortion in the organizational setting. Moral ambiguities
make organizational leaders adopt paradoxical attitudes toward the prevention of bribery
and extortion. “Sociopolitical saviors”are those leaders whose attitudes and deeds reduce
followers’capacity to morally question business practices. The philosophical basis of four
styles of morally ambiguous leadership unveils two basic antagonisms: the antagonism
between cruelty and compassion; and the antagonism between social conformism and
revolutionary spirit. Both antagonismsare based on the nature and consequences of bribery
and extortion. On one hand, bribing someone is offering him/her an unlawful advantage in
exchange for unfair, non-contractual and illegal treatment (“the offerors’perspective”).
Soliciting bribes is asking someone to give us such unfair, non-contractual and illegal
treatment in exchange for an unlawful advantage (“the seekers’perspective”). Offeringand
soliciting bribes reduce business partners’freedom. Being aware of the unlawful character
of bribes makes partners involved in apparently consensual agreement. But offering bribes
could be as much binding as soliciting bribes. In both cases, victims can lose part of their
existentiell-onticfreedom, and even part of their administrativepower. Extorting money and
goods from given victims is undertaking threat-related activities against given victims.
Psychological and physical threats are used to get victims’consent in a very short delay.
Bribing and extorting someone is undermining his/her existentiell freedom. Extorters and
bribe offerors/seekersattempt to create a business environment that is devoid of rules. They
could also try to make rules/policies ineffective and to promote an illegal system of
preferential treatment (Harstad and Svensson, 2011, p. 46). Their inner mindset is suitable
for increasing their criminal activities and justifying their bribery/extortion schemes.
Extorters and bribe offerors/seekers enhance a one-track thinking that gets rid of human
dignity and freedom, regardless of people’s needs/expectations of social conformism. Any
one-track thinking is grounded on an ideologically oriented revolutionary spirit. Thus, the
JFC
27,4
1028
To continue reading
Request your trial