Most people today recognise that the creation of an ethical culture is a pressing task for corporations, especially for corporate executives, but we do not to a similar degree hold that the same applies to governments and government executives, indeed to all leaders in all forms of institutional governance.

More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle advanced an ethic of leadership which is applicable equally to a corporate boardroom as to a cabinet meeting.

He argued that one of the primary tasks of a leader is to create conditions under which subordinates could realise their human potential.

Leadership was not about a leader’s need for power and prestige, but about the ability to create an environment in which those who had subsidiary functions could realise the capacities they were born with.

This view goes directly against a prevailing understanding of the meaning of “strong leadership.”

Strong leadership is generally felt to be leadership which operates more or less alone, imposing its will on everyone, and brooking no opposition from any subordinate quarter.

The strong leader dictates; subordinates repeat.

Under such conditions the test of institutional loyalty becomes how far one duplicates the views of the leader or articulates what one thinks the leader would like to hear.

Contrast this with one of President-elect Obama’s recent statements regarding the personnel at the top echelon of the new administration: “I am a believer in strong personalities and strong opinions…in people who are not shy about expressing their views.”

The immediate context of this remark was the choice of Hillary Clinton to be the new Secretary of State.

Political commentary on the choice compared it to Lincoln’s decision to put his enemies in his cabinet—where he could see them, or to ensure that Clinton would do his and not her own independent bidding.

There may be some elements of truth in all this, but Obama’s observation seems to me to be one with the fabric of his views on government generally. He’s interested not in ideology but in “what works.” He wants the best people in government, which means putting the country and the needs of the people before ideology.

Obviously, in her new role Mrs Clinton cannot be expected to be, indeed will not be a clone of President Obama, but she will carry out her responsibilities in a way that’s also congruent with her own personality.

When the new cabinet meets, we can also be sure that she will not be shy in expressing herself.

Obama’s vision is thus not one of dominant solo leadership, with Secretaries dutifully falling in line, though it does mean, as he went on to say, that “the buck will stop with me.”

In Aristotle’s view, the ethical leader creates such an environment.

It is something pursued intentionally, not simply left to chance. The leader on these terms understands that there are limits on his or her own power that must be observed if subordinates—Secretaries, ministers, heads of department—are to be allowed to lead and develop.

Leadership is essentially something shared, an undertaking in which many participate.

Too many leaders, says Aristotle, turn their subordinates into passive recipients of their own feats, and there’s nothing really ethical about that.

Both Aristotle’s ethic and Obama’s attitude suggest certain questions for any leader’s self-scrutiny. For example:

To what extent do I consciously make an effort to provide leadership opportunities for those who work with me, or for me?

To what extent do I encourage full participation by immediate advisers in decisions regarding the good of the institution we serve?

To what extent do I allow them to lead in their own areas of responsibility?

To what extent do I measure my own performance not only in respect of my effectiveness or accomplishments, but in terms of the practical wisdom I show in creating conditions for members of my team to fulfil their own potential?

The key element in the prevailing understanding of leadership today is effectiveness.

In the corporate world this translates into the attitude of the famous CEO Jack Welch, one which is widely shared and held in the highest esteem.

Welch proudly proclaimed that the only criterion he should be evaluated by was how much wealth he created for shareholders.

Many executives share Welch’s view, regarding the ethical dimension as either a distraction or an irrelevance.

There are others, of course, who believe that a corporation should have ethical concerns at its core, and that ways must be found to synchronise profit-making with ethical observance.

I am quite aware that many managers, not to mention much of the public itself, remain cynical about this possibility.

What I fail to understand is how they can then with such innocence comment on the social state of ethical decay.

An ethical culture of leadership for government executives presents analogous challenges.

There, of course, issues germane to our topic arise not from absolutising the bottom line but from the attraction and lure of power and prestige.

An executive for whom power is a personal possession will regard any power-sharing not as facilitating the leadership potential of others, but as personal diminishment.

The more I yield, the less I have. That way powerlessness lies.

I must therefore keep subordinates subordinate and consolidate power in myself.

We have yet to grasp in all spheres of leadership the full dimensions of service where power is concerned.

Few declarations today are more easily uttered than “I am here to serve.”

What is often unexpressed is the qualifier: “…but I can only do that if people serve me.”

The creation of an ethical culture remains one of the principal tasks of leaders in all areas of governance.

This means that they must pose tough questions to themselves as much as they raise such questions or pose challenges to others.

It’s the starting point in any organisation or institution for creating a culture where ethics matters.