Taking a moral stand is seen by many as the more effective approach for a leader to take. Making decisions based on morality, instead of economics, shows better moral character and authenticity to stand for a cause that's right. People are more inspired by leaders who lead by moral principles than by the economic bottom line or to maximize profits.
Credit: CC0 Public Domain
The problem with a public moral stance, is that you are expected to live by what you say as well. Leaders may want to take moral stances to improve the audiences' perception about them, but if they change their minds later then the leader may be judged more harshly for being a hypocrite who said one thing but did another.
How do supporters react when a leader changes their mind? Does a moral stance matter more? Does changing minds mean one is a flip-flopper with no consistent core? Can this lack of integrity be trusted? Can turning against one's alleged fundamental moral values be trusted? Does changing minds instead play out favorably as the qualities of open-mindedness? A recent study asked these questions and set out to answer them.
A study had 5,500 people aged 18-77, in 15 experiments, where they learned about political or business leaders who had changed their minds. Some people were told that a certain leaders initial position was morally based, and others were told the leader took a pragmatic position, such as it being good for the economy.
Over and over, participants judged changing or abandoning a moral stance as a greater violation of their trust. To me, this speaks of the subconscious drive for truth and morality we all have at the core of who we are. We want to live in a just, fair and moral world, not the opposite. Being let down on that future moral goal hurts a leader more than being let down on wanting better economic lives. Breaking moral commitments is a greater violation, more of a wrong, than breaking pragmatic promises.
The moral stance is better over the pragmatic one to gain support for the higher moral road, but if you break your word you can be seen as hypocritical. For other people, they might find a change courageous for admitting wrong and shows being more flexible. When changing minds from a moral stance, a leader can lose their credibility, be seen as less effective and less worthy of future support. However, if you make a pragmatic argument at first and then change it, the same isn't so.
As I see it, a moral decision is about the principles you live by, trying to make thing better, while pragmatic decisions are based on dealing with the current condition and surviving, not a focus on trying to make it morally optimized. Moral stances show how you want to make things better even if it's harder in the long-term, while pragmatic is about the easier short-term road and how you can keep people from losing their money or livelihoods (economic survivability and standards of living). Both appeal to aspects of what we want: survival; and more moral, higher, truer, realer, authentic, genuine living.
Something surprised the researchers though when they tried to introduce factors that they thought would weaken the effect of being seen as less effective, distrusting and not worthy of future support. What about if a participant was a moral relativist who rejected objective reality? What if the leader did not need popular support? It didn't matter, people still view moral mind-changers as more hypocritical than pragmatic mind-changers.
Moral leaders can get more support by championing for more challenging moral changes, but they have few options to keep their support if they are perceived as hypocritical due to changing their minds and no longer standing up for a moral issue they formally did.
If a leader doesn't stick with their moral commitment, how can people trust that they will stick with other moral commitments such as the basic moral way of living most people already agree to? The pragmatic leader may be less morally driven, but they didn't make a claim about better moral living and then break it. They have less of a hypocritical violation, even if they back down from their pragmatic commitments later on.
Moral leaders can keep the trust and support of their followers if their reason for changing their moral position is a result of their own personal transformation in understanding morality, or if such a change came from external forces out of their control.
This can explain why few leaders make moral commitments that carry more hardship and controversy to turn into a reality, as opposed to economic or other changes being committed to. You risk losing your followers if you back-peddle from a moral stance that they take to heart. And even if it's not something that is morally important to them personally, they will view breaking a moral commitment as wrong. Breaking a pragmatic commitment can result in the loss of support, but requires less explanation in order to maintain a higher level of support from followers.
Moral convictions are expected to stay strong, like a rock. Being authentic, genuine and real in making moral claims is important. It means you will stand for it. Someone who makes an inauthentic moral commitment is only doing so to indulge the moral audience and gain their support, which could backfire since they will be more willing to abandon a moral position they don't even really accept themselves or are capable of defending.
Not only is changing our own minds hard for ourselves, and risky in relation to those we relate to -- be they supporters, friends or acquaintances -- but changing the minds of others is a hard thing to do as well.
You don't need to be a "leader" to gain trust and support by making moral commitments. And you don't need to be a leader to lose that support and trust by abandoning those moral positions. If the people you get support from care about morality, then you will pay a price for abandoning morality -- leader or not.
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
References
- Mind changing can be risky
- "Hypocritical Flip-Flop or Courageous Evolution? When Leaders Change Their Moral Minds," by Tamar Kreps, PhD, University of Utah; Kristin Laurin, PhD, University of British Columbia; and Anna Merritt, PhD, Stanford University. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published online June 8, 2017. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000103
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
or Reblogging 
below.
me for more content to come!
Please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
Would you day that being in charge of a group of people, also adds or removes weight from the decisions we make? Thank you for sharing this post!
If the leader is expected to make decisions, without authoritarian rule and control through coercion, then they need to do things the people will mostly agree to, so the leader makes decisions based on what people will accept so I guess that removes some weight, since you know the range you need to aim within. That is if you want to be leader and keep the position just by placating and pandering to what the people want. Heading towards more of what's good, right and true isn't always what people want.
People associate strong leadership with morality, in my experience. The initial decision is always seen as the moral one, irrespective if it is based on morality, and failing to actualize it to its full potential (often perceived) is associated with immorality. Failure -> bad -> immoral. Weakness -> bad -> immoral. Therefore anything invoking a feeling of negativity = immoral, content be damned. When a leader changes his stance, even when the decision is for the better, they see it as betrayal and weak leadership. I don't change my mind on anything just for this reason as a head of a family or back when I was in charge of large teams of people.
Damn, that sucks, you make a valid point about the twisted mindsets and flawed thinking people engage in. Stick with your guns even when wrong lol, or else people think it's backsliding and a betrayal... the hubris of a falser-self template we have been emulating... Thanks for the feedback.
You're right, I feel betrayed and let down when people don't live as they say. The only time I have respect for someone who changes their moral standing is when the person is turning away from a flawed moral belief that hurt other people or made things worse, and adopts a new improved standing. I also sympathize with people who break their own word unintentionally and show appropriate levels of regret as well as a willingness to maintain their initial standing. This is just how I handle things, so I'm speaking for myself.
Your article is thought-provoking. Great work!
Thanks for sharing :)
You sound a like a strong and principled person, I like it! Thanks for the feedback.
You're welcome. And thanks for the compliment :)
Krenl - I have personally experienced with the hardships associated with being a leader who takes a moral stand. I worked in a government heirarchy for first 10 years of my active service life. I could see corruption and biased decisions aplenty. I took a stand and battled it out to deliver, what I believe my moral mandate was. It was not easy but I felt good in spite of all the hardships like frequent transfers and other bureaucratic negative treatment that I had to receive. Thanks for writing this article and raising awareness on the topic. Upvoted.
I have posted a Baboon portrait and written about deforestation. Can you please check it out when you get time and resteem it if you like to spread awareness. Thanks https://steemit.com/portraitcontest/@vm2904/portraitcontest-baboon-reflecting-on-life-entry-1
Indeed, good on you to take a stand despite all the backlash of those more corrupted than you. Bravo! Thanks for the feedback.
I believe that because people do what is morally right in their own eyes, they feel that they can legitimately modify moral right and wrong to suit their situations or circumstances. But morality is meaningless if it changes on a dime, or for a dime. The first step to leadership is absolute morality - right is always right and wrong is always wrong. Even if "it's complicated" there is always an actual right and an actual wrong - it actually exists. :-) @ironshield
Yes, objective morality can be determined from objective actions and their effect on others. Thanks for the feedback.
This was a good read! I think the results we see everyday support the study you included, and for good reason. With a few exceptions, "changing" one's mind on moral matter indicates a lack of morals - no principles that permeate to the core of one's being, no values that guide one's life.
The exceptions include discovering new information that justifies the change in perspective (i.e. the moral equivalent of discovering the earth really is round, not flat as previously thought).
Do you have any thoughts on how people would react if a leader truly learned something new and changed their position on a moral issue?
Complex issue. Would they get the new information to also allow them to understand better? Getting their approval depends on what they know. Why something different is better would need to be explained. Maybe even then they reject it overall, stuck in the old/current ways... Thanks for the feedback.
I do think that many would still reject the switch, but I think people who believe in reason would understand if the decision was logical (as far as discovering the truth... not the same as discovering a constituency disagrees and one might not be re-elected).
I'm trying to think of historical leader (business or political) who have done this, but nothing comes to mind. If someone pops up, I'll drop you another reply. I know there are a few business leaders who have done something of this sort, but they're just not making themselves available for me right now!
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by justinchase from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.
I have always taught my kinds, follow what you feel is right in your heart. So they Take a stand for what they believe, even if it means they Stand alone. Thanks for sharing
Right on! It can be hard, but you stay true and integrated with the right thing to do, and let others know. :) You're welcome and thanks for the feedback.
I've had a hard time reading your article because, in my opinion, the words political leaders and moral commitments cannot fit in the same sentence. There was a time when I used to like a politician for his moral stance, but not anymore. Your article makes a good point, people do want to live in a fair and just society, but I'm afraid 99% of the politicians take advantage of this natural desire and simply pretend they have a solid moral stance. In my country, it's all about corruption, it's been like this for the past two decades. People go out and vote for those that shout louder that they will fight against corruption. Even worse, if a certain politician turns out to be corrupt himself, his supporters for the most part do not feel let down by such a betrayal, they simply ignore the facts. I really wish I could live in one of the experiments you're talking about where hypocrites get what they deserve.
LMAO! I know what you mean :P
Yup, they go with what people accept, and when they don't well people just forget about how they used to say the opposite. What country do you live in, the USA?
Actually, no, I live in Romania. But our president did visit the White House recently and they had a joint press conference where Romanian journalists kept asking Trump about the corruption in our country. As Trump is not known for any kind of high moral stance, he had to dodge the question repeatedly and answer pragmatically that all Americans care is doing business in this country. So, there you are.
Bahaha! Business = make money, morals come second lol. We got some of that here... lol
i definitely find it much easier to be a pragmatic leader. but i also notice that even if i'm just operating an online business, when i take the moral road sometimes (in terms of business ethics), my employees respond quite positively.
most of the time i just do what's good for the business and our livelihood, though. i think that as long as you are being honest with your motives, it's not hard to garner support as a leader. people are understanding.
not sure if i'm missing the whole point of your post, but thanks for sharing anyway. i enjoyed reading it!
All good, thanks for the feedback, all valid things to add ;) The point was about backsliding from a moral commitment.
Our politcians take a test...if they have morals..they cannot run for office. Morals and ethics have left our country and there is now zero accountability for what people "say" and do otherwise. The media is just as corrupt. We are being sold down the river to bring in "something else" I am afraid.
Yeah, true, thanks for the feedback. Lack of accountability for behavior is something that pervades all of society, even into virtual domains like Steemit. Here, it's plutocracy, where the rich rulers can do anything and only have other rich rulers who can punish each other with the SP power. If they all allow one rich ruler to misbehave, then who ever is being mistreated will continue to be mistreated. Check out my posts since the end of February, I left for nearly 3 months because of being flagged on nearly all my posts. The rich rulers single-handedly decide who is allowed to keep the rewards that other users allocate to them by upvotes.
Thank you for your candid and excellent feedback. I think what we are saying is we want truth and fairness -- not socialism -- but the systems (even virtual ) are not working. We can do better. Thank you again!
You're welcome ;) Yeah more just and fair without the corruption and scammy manipulations. Thanks for the feedback.
Great post.
I like to check definitions. Sometimes I am surprised that a definition can be slightly different than what I always thought was the meaning of word.
Definition: morality...a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. Hmmm. So morality has a bit of a variability to it. It is what "the society" considers acceptable codes of behavior.
A politician plays off of this. What do the people want? I'll take that stand. Hence, poles, and voting and free press, etc. At least that's the idea. So one society could be considered amoral by another society. The gay issue is one such example.
In a democratic society the leader must get the votes of a majority of the people to get into office and to stay in office. Tricky.... especially if there are conflicting societies and sub societies within the greater society. The best policy is to stay as close to pure and good as possible. For that a leader has to be less of a politician and more of an actual leader and constantly reflect within himself what the "right thing to do" is. And take guidance from trusted advisors. It is not Wallas clear what the right thing to do it.
If they demonstrate that they are someone who wants to do the right thing they will be protected even if they make a mistake or two.
Most people apply a false-"morality" of subjectively basing on what they prefer. True morality is objective from actions that cause harm to others. Most people don't even know what morality is, nor do dictionaries. The basics are that objective actions that create harm are not moral actions to take. Being gay isn't a moral issue, no harm is being done to another. Preferences or other justifications of how it's wrong in some way are not necessarily moral arguments. Wrong can be 2+2=5, o r you're supposed to turn left not right here, etc. Thanks for the feedback, yes the leader needs to reflect on doing whats right, and that should be the first motivator for making decisions. Making mistakes is indeed what can happen, and we learn from them ;)
Ah yes "true" morality... but "harm to others" is itself a bit subjective. On one level the surgeon's knife looks like harm but it is markedly different than the thief's knife. What is good? What is harm?
LOL. Come on with the fallacious argument here... it's harmful to save someone's life because you cut them?..
If we look at simply the outward action. Cutting the body then there is harm. So there is subjective level. Motivation, intent. The gross activity is the same.
Yes, but this is a basic intuitive understanding that someone saving your life might need to cut and cause physical harm to get to the problem. It's much like truth can cause harm/hurt psychologically to get to the root of understanding reality and resolving more complex issues. So asking if it's moral harm when someone like a doctor cuts you to save your life is playing a devils advocate for no reason, you don't even accept that question as valid nor does anyone else. Unless you're trying to play games because you're a moral relativist or subjectivity, which I've experienced before and don;t feel like unraveling and putting right that state of confusion, lol.
Harm as used before for morality, to do no harm to others, golden rule, is to not steal various property, life, sexual preference, body safety, physical ownership of objects, personal space safety. That's basic morality. And more moral behavior beyond that has to do with other harm done, like mistreating others, being cruel, where your character and conduct is not right in how to treat others. Morality is about including the concern and consideration of others into our own self-interest, selfishness, self-centeredness, self-concern and self-importance. Basic morality is overt physical actions, but its more complex when looking at all behavior. Moral behavior maximizes cooperative survival optimization.
Thank you for the great post and for taking the time and thoughtfulness to prepare in depth replies. What I am looking at is.... is there a morality beyond good and bad? In other words, I have been studying Bhagavad Gita and it is a great discussion of just this issue. The main character is a leader and he is faced with a moral dilemma. Perhaps you are familiar with the scenario presented there. According to "duty" he is sworn to certain codes of behavior but he if he performs his duty it will mean fighting and killing in battle relatives and respected members and leaders of the society. Kind of like Hamlet. To be or not to be.. Whether it is better to oppose them and end them... kind of thing. If he goes back on his sworn duty he will be a laughing stock and have no leadership influence ever again. Branded a coward. Or in modern day terms a flip-flopper. This impasse brings him to his knees and to tears. He is forced to seek what is the highest morality. His conclusion is to depend on God. He does his duty, everyone is killed. Bhagavad gita has to be the greatest dissertation on morality ever.. Thanks for letting me look a little deeper at this dynamic and the great discussion.
If you have minute... this has to be the best translation available... free online https://prabhupadabooks.com/bg?d=1
Very true. Moral standards are best. I tend to take people at their word but once they fall short of what they say, fall back or simply abandon their values it's hard to recover and regain trust. Great article. Thanks for sharing!
Indeed, that's a good way to keep or remove trust. You're welcome and thanks for the feedback as well.
An issue with this is that when it's applied on a greater scale many of any one politician's supporters don't exercise their memory to the extent that they should. An act of hypocrisy could me committed and only a select few would even notice.
The further into the government I see, the more it seems to be written by George Orwell.
Indeed. Like Orwell as you say, believe whatever they say and think it's the right thing even if they said the opposite before.
Interesting take! However, what if a leader takes a logical, not moral, approach to a matter or a political view? For instance, (and I thought of this because I really couldn't think of something else XD) let's say that California has a zombie virus and everyone there is turning into zombies and eating everything. There's no known cure for it and the disease is rapidly spreading. The only option to stopping it is bomb the cities in that state that harbor the most zombie and clean unaffected people to prevent the disease from spreading further... and the president had promised to protect the people of the U.S...
The more I write, the more crazy this seems, I apologize.
Sounds good. In morality, you don't harm others and others don't you. The non-aggression principle, go look it up. If someone ingresses on your right to not have your life stolen, sexual preference stolen, etc. then they lose their automatic right to be free from harm as you can engage in self-defense of various levels that can harm an aggressor, a violator who violates your moral rights. Zombies, even if there was a cure, you could kill them since they are trying to kill you, and they would, guaranteed. If zombies didn't try to eat people and did no harm, that's another issue ;)
Jeff Bezos said "Smart people change their minds a lot." As you get new information, it makes sense to adjust your worldview. For example, I used to think blogging was lame, but then I found Steemit!
Yup, new information can adjust previous incorrect or false info. Thanks for the feedback.
There is a type of leader personality. They are very often identified by the marking M on the palms of their hands.. Google it. From Vladamir Putin, Alexander the Great to Michael Jackson.
I have the double M marking on my hands. Here are true things about me that are different than most.
Perhaps there are some born leaders, due to extra sensitivity and extreme moral compass? I can attest to stumbling upon this info recently, and having it describe my so so perfectly. My wife also is an empath, more sensitive to people than me. I am not as sensitive as her.
Very good post ...I like it :)
Resteemed this very excelent post. Thanks for sharing happy Sunday!
Thanks for the support :) Have a good one as well ;)
One vote from East Timor.hehe
Heyhey!
Another very interesting read, thanks krnel, i don't want to promote myself on your blog, but i made a post a day or so ago that i think you might enjoy that's very much in line with this, would be great if you could check it out and tell me what you think
Cheers mate.
I believe roughly 60% of people are decent, and want to do the right thing. As our economic condition starts to put stress on our leaders ability to cover their tracks, hopefully we hold them accountable. Maybe we even realize, we don't need this many leaders in our lives.
I think moral ascendancy when marred by the truthfulness of leadership controversies will become hard to regain and even reshape for a period of time. That's why when a well known leaders fell into moral issues, they just trying to make a quick remedy by turning their back to the pedestal of leadership role and guest what, they will forcefully want to take another new road to start their life over again.
Yeah, they go back into business life or whatever they were doing before.
@krnel thank you so much for your up-vote and I appreciate it very well :)
I guess it's a matter of time . People usually never go by their words which is sad , it's hard to even trust people in this world these days because people always let us down