A Kantian theory of leadership

Abstract

Uses Kant’s moral philosophy to provide a normative theory of leadership. First shows how Kant’s philosophy would reject instrumental theories of leadership and most charismatic theories of leadership. Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, it questions some of the assumptions of servant leadership and puts constraints on transformational leadership and the leader as educator. The central concept of Kant’s moral philosophy is the dignity given to autonomy. Thus a good leader ought to respect and enrich the autonomy of followers. The Kantian leader turns followers into leaders.

Philosophical Foundations of Workplace Spirituality: A Critical Approach

“…Equally importantly, the Kantian emphasis on the moral autonomy of the individual as an ultimate normative principle prevents moral agents from exercising any form of coercion within organisational settings (cf. Bowie, 1998Bowie, , 2000. In diminishing the importance of individual interest and by focussing on proper moral intentions, business and organisational practices ''under a Kantian regime have only one ultimate reason for being: to develop the humane, rational and moral capacities of people in and outside the organisation.''…”

Corporate purpose as the basis of moral leadership of the firm

“…Despite this fact, the vast majority of perspectives on business leadership are silent on this topic. More troubling is Bowie's (2000) view that many of the theories of business leadership, such as charismatic and servant leadership, are of questionable morality from a Kantian perspective. One clear exception to this general picture is James MacGregor Burns' (1978) survey of leadership in modern political history.…”

The Cultural Paradigm of Virtue

“…There remain major contradictions with other traditional theories (to be considered later), and for those enlightened management practices that Kant does endorse, there seem at least as many that he would not [e.g. Bowie (2000) acknowledges that Kant would reject many forms of charismatic, servant or transformational leadership]. A more edifying justification would be to demonstrate the practical use of Kantian theory in the daily judgment of ordinary employees.…”

“…While he has suggested that the very purpose of a company should be replaced with a Kantian alternative, the bulk of his argument implies that the changes required of such a perspective are more evolutionary than revolutionary. Leadership practices (Bowie, 2000), supplier relations (Arnold and Bowie, 2003) and internal corporate ethics programs (Reynolds and Bowie, 2004) have since been considered, but a more complete paradigm has yet to emerge. Bowie concludes his case against the egoistic paradigm: ''It is tempting to tell entrepreneurs to break off from parent companies because they can make more money.…”