Should leaders always be true to their values?

"This widely-endorsed mantra, known as moral authenticity, is based on two rather logical assumptions. First, leaders (unlike, say, first line supervisors or mid-level managers), are not just in charge to coordinate human activity, but also to act as agents of meaning. Indeed, what most people expect from leaders is some form of inspiration, including ethical guidance, spiritual direction, and strong alignment between their values and behaviors."

"Second, followers gravitate towards leaders who share their values or core beliefs. Therefore, they have an incentive to know and understand how leaders feel and think about critical issues (e.g., ideology, politics, social issues, and current affairs) in order to decide whether they are worthy of being followed. Accordingly, leaders who are either unclear about their values or unable to convincingly project what their values are may be incapable of leading, and questioned, if not plainly ignored, by followers."

Moral authenticity prescribes that leaders remain true to their values under all circumstances. That stance rests on two assumptions. First, leaders act as agents of meaning who must inspire, provide ethical guidance and demonstrate strong alignment between values and behaviors. Second, followers prefer leaders who share core beliefs and seek to understand leaders' positions on ideology, politics, social issues, and current affairs. Leaders who are unclear about their values or fail to project them can be questioned, ignored, or lose trust; inconsistent positions can erode public confidence, as in John Kerry's 2004 wartime funding remark. Strict consistency can sometimes be problematic. Uncertainty invites self-doubt.

Read at Fast Company