In a thought-provoking discussion on ethical leadership and governance, Professor Joel Hayward, a distinguished scholar in leadership studies, delved into the complexities of morality, effectiveness, and the evolving paradigms of leadership in a highly competitive global landscape.
Speaking at the Contemporary Leadership International Summit 2025 (CLIS 2025), Hayward challenged conventional wisdom by arguing that while ethical leadership was essential for a positive legacy, history revealed that many effective leaders had achieved success through questionable or outright unethical means.
He began by tracing the evolution of leadership studies, noting that early research focused on identifying traits associated with effective leadership, such as charisma, courage, intelligence and persuasiveness.
“In my early career, teaching military leadership, the emphasis was on traits—what people were rather than what they did,” he explained.
“However, with advancements in behavioral sciences and psychology, the field shifted toward understanding leadership as a set of behaviours and actions. This led to the exploration of concepts like transactional versus transformational leadership and task-oriented versus relationship-oriented behaviour,” he said.
Despite this shift, he questioned whether morality had been adequately integrated into leadership studies.
“Is there a causal relationship between morality and effectiveness? I argue that we overstate this significantly. History is replete with leaders who were highly effective but morally dubious,” he said.
He went on to mention that effectiveness in leadership was often measured by the ability to inspire others, drive change and achieve strategic goals. However, he cautioned against conflating effectiveness with morality.
“We often assume that successful leaders are inherently good people, but this is a false logic. Leaders like Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and even modern figures like Stalin and Mao achieved monumental change but their methods were often ruthless and unethical.”
“A good person can be a good leader, but a bad person can also be an effective leader if effectiveness is defined by the ability to get things done. Conversely, a good person can be a bad leader, and a bad person can be a bad leader. There is no direct causation between a leader’s morality and their outcomes,” he explained.
Hayward also explored the dichotomy between realist and liberal leadership styles. Realist leaders, he explained, prioritised power, self-interest and competition, often at the expense of ethical considerations.
“In realist states, leaders focus on projecting strength and gaining advantage. Personal ethics are secondary to success in global competition. This approach, while effective in the short term, often leads to long-term reputational damage and ethical dilemmas,” he said.
In contrast, he added, liberal leaders emphasised cooperation, persuasion and universal values. Liberal leadership was rooted in a rules-based system that prioritised dialogues, collaboration, and win-win solutions.
He cited New Zealand, his home country, as an example of a liberal democracy that valued ethical governance and common good.
Meanwhile he expressed concern about the resurgence of political realism in global leadership. “The liberal post-Cold War order is under threat, and we are witnessing a return to power-driven leadership,” he said.
This shift, he argued, raised critical questions about the future of ethical leadership.
“Will intense economic and security competition drive states and their leaders to unethical actions? Recent events, such as policies that contravene international humanitarian law, suggest that this is already happening.”
He pointed to the example of leaders like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, whose actions often prioritise power and self-interest over ethical considerations.
“These leaders project decisiveness and strength but their disregard for ethical norms is deeply troubling. The challenge is to balance effectiveness with morality, ensuring that leadership serves the greater good rather than narrow interests.” he explained.
Hayward warned that unethical leadership carried significant consequences, both for leaders and their societies. In realist contexts, unethical conduct might be tolerated if leaders delivered results, but this tolerance was not infinite.
He cited historical examples, such as the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, where public trust in leaders eroded due to ethical failures.
In liberal democracies, however, leaders are held to higher ethical standards. “People expect their leaders to uphold integrity, both in public and private life. Any ethical failing can lead to a loss of trust and legitimacy.”
Despite the challenges, Hayward underscored the enduring importance of ethical leadership. He said ethical leadership might not always seem as strong or decisive as power-driven leadership but it had an unparalleled impact on followership.
“People will follow a good leader willingly, not out of fear or coercion. Ethical leadership builds trust, fosters collaboration and ensures a positive legacy.
“The actions we take today will have long-lasting consequences. If we want to create a better future, we must lead with integrity, compassion and a commitment to the common good,” he said.
