The Relationship Between Power, Command and Moral Courage

Moral courage is the ability to carefully deliberate a situation and rationally make the moral decision, even though there may be adverse consequences, such as harm to one’s self or reputation. As anyone familiar with the term ‘Machiavellian’ is aware, the traits of moral courage and power do no necessarily go hand in hand. Moral courage requires a tempered, timely use of power. As we will see, too much as well as too little power both result in weak moral courage. 

Let’s look at two types of power: personal power and position power. Personal power is the influence one exerts over others through charisma or some other trait that is completely independent of his or her position. Position power is the rank one has been granted within the hierarchy of an organization. Lt Col Holland is defined as a ‘rogue aviator’, which means that he broke flight regulations and gained popularity, personal power, by doing so (Kern, p. 6). His enjoyment of personal power hurts his organization and the efficacy of the rules. This disregard is an example of weak moral courage. The various commanders who did not take the time to punish him through the official channels their position power requires also displayed weak moral courage (Kern, p. 10). These commanders neglected the need to use their power while Lt Col Holland excessively used his. The commanders even indirectly enabled his use of personal power by using footage of his spectacular display for promotion (Kern, p. 12). This is an example of selectively enforcing regulations, which is an abuse of position power.

It is clear that a ‘culture of compliance’ is necessary to promote moral courage within an organization (Kern, p. 6). Commanders should emphasize and encourage all subordinates to nurture this culture, one in which placing the needs of the organization above one’s self is valued more than one’s personal power. A commander must be consistent with his or her position power, and this often takes moral courage. Also, personal power cannot be a replacement for position power in certain situations, particularly when regulations are broken. This is what occurred when Lt Col Holland was verbally, but not officially reprimanded multiple times, allowing him to continue his irresponsible actions (Kern, p. 11).

In conclusion, the tendencies of excessive personal power and neglect of position power seen in the case study of Lt Col Holland make it clear how important and necessary it is that moral courage be consistently acted out in every kind of situation so as to prevent such tragedies. Lt Col McGeehan made the tough, morally courageous decision. He protected his crew and set an example for other leaders and pilots (Kern, p. 16). However, his death, and the ultimatum that led to it, could easily have been prevented if others put forward the effort to make the more difficult, but right, decisions.

Reference

Kern, T. (1995). Darker shades of blue: A case study of failed leadership.