Scribd
Upload
5 views2 pages

Principled Pragmatism in Leadership

The document discusses the challenges of leadership, emphasizing the need for Principled Pragmatism, which combines political tactics with moral clarity. It highlights the organizational arena as a 'moral maze' where self-interest and conflict are prevalent, and suggests that effective leadership requires understanding and navigating these dynamics. The key takeaway is that leaders must balance hardball tactics with a compelling vision to justify their actions and avoid the pitfalls of power corruption.

Uploaded by

crystal.teal.horse
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views2 pages

Principled Pragmatism in Leadership

The document discusses the challenges of leadership, emphasizing the need for Principled Pragmatism, which combines political tactics with moral clarity. It highlights the organizational arena as a 'moral maze' where self-interest and conflict are prevalent, and suggests that effective leadership requires understanding and navigating these dynamics. The key takeaway is that leaders must balance hardball tactics with a compelling vision to justify their actions and avoid the pitfalls of power corruption.

Uploaded by

crystal.teal.horse
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Week 3: Bolman, Deal, and Pfeffer

When I reflected on the readings, I realized that the biggest problem in leadership
isn’t being incompetent, but rather the real challenge of leadership is practicing Principled
Pragmatism—the ability to utilize the "bare-knuckle" political tactics of Pfeffer while
maintaining the moral clarity that Bolman and Deal brought up.

Bolman and Deal define the organizational arena as a "moral maze," where decisions are
not rational but rather are the outcomes of bargaining. The bargaining comes from coalitions of
interest groups fighting over scarce resources, including budget allocations, high-performing
talent, and access to senior leadership's attentions. In this organizational arena, conflict is normal
because self-interest drives decisions, and power tends to easily corrupt. This frame shows me
the hard-to-accept reality: if I want to bring change, relying only on doing a good job would be
naive and ineffective. The belief that the world is a fair place, as Pfeffer argues, is a delusion that
makes leaders numb to the problems they should be solving.

Pfeffer gives the necessary toolkit for navigating this maze. He provides the transactional
"how-to" guide for getting things done when you have responsibility but no line authority. I
recognize that tactics like metering out resources or removing rivals are not about being
transparent or ethical. However, they are about influencing behavior within to make the path for
the vision that drives the organization. As Gary Loveman showed at Harrah’s, the effective use
of power requires putting aside personal feelings and resentment to make important relationships
work, as the job comes first.

However, the real bridge between the two authors, and the foundation of Principled
Pragmatism, is clear in Pfeffer’s final idea: Make the vision compelling. The leader must hold
hardball tactics without falling into the moral maze. As Pfeffer mentions, clever fighters bring a
valuable purpose to frame their personal objectives desirably. I believe this is the key to ethical
political action, as framing prevents the use of power from becoming arrogant. This is the trap
Bolman and Deal warn against, as it ensures that the bare-knuckle execution serves the
compelling vision, not the ego.
The conversations between Pfeffer, Bolman, and Deal are deeply connected. Bolman and
Deal define the political necessity and the ethical risk, and Pfeffer gives the aggressive, practical
strategies needed for victory. I believe it’s important that we teach leaders not just what to do
(have a good strategy), but how to win in the political battles they will face. This should all be
done while attaching their actions to a purpose that’s clear and compelling, so it justifies the use
of power in the first place.

You might also like