Should leaders always be true to their values?

Few things seem more obvious and unquestionable than the notion that leaders should always be true to their values, no matter what.

This widely-endorsed mantra, known as moral authenticity, is based on two rather logical assumptions.

First, leaders (unlike, say, first line supervisors or mid-level managers), are not just in charge to coordinate human activity, but also to act as agents of meaning. Indeed, what most people expect from leaders is some form of inspiration, including ethical guidance, spiritual direction, and strong alignment between their values and behaviors.

Second, followers gravitate towards leaders who share their values or core beliefs. Therefore, they have an incentive to know and understand how leaders feel and think about critical issues (e.g., ideology, politics, social issues, and current affairs) in order to decide whether they are worthy of being followed.

Accordingly, leaders who are either unclear about their values or unable to convincingly project what their values are may be incapable of leading, and questioned, if not plainly ignored, by followers. For a modern example in politics, consider John Kerry, who became an emblem of political flip-flopping when, during the 2004 campaign, remarked that he had “voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it,” referring to a wartime funding bill he initially supported with conditions and later opposed, eroding public trust in the consistency of his convictions.

The case for changing course

And yet, there are reasons why adhering to a strict consistency isn’t always best. For example:

(1) Uncertainty invites self-doubt: In an age where almost nothing is certain and the world seems unpredictable, it is only rational (and human) for leaders to think before they act, and have the capacity to not follow their heart, controlling their instinctive impulses and decoupling the stimulus-response chain from knee-jerk reactions. What looks like hesitation is often a sign of maturity: the ability to pause, reflect, and override one’s own emotional intuitions in order to choose the response that serves the group, not one’s ego. In other words, a leader who never second-guesses themselves is not confident; they’re dangerous.

(2) Tolerance requires flexibility: The ability to not just “park” their values aside, but to attempt to understand and accept the values of others (not just followers, subordinates, and voters, but also critics and opposers) strengthens leaders’ ability to unite and, well, lead: since leadership is about bringing people together rather than dividing them or enhancing existing divisions. Conversely, leaders who treat their own values as sacred commandments will enhance factions and polarize, appealing to fans and fanatics with cult-like charisma but repelling and antagonizing almost everyone else. Dogmatic rigidity to one’s values creates tribes; flexible curiosity creates pragmatic coalitions and unity.

(3) Toxic or problematic values: What if the leader’s values are wrong, antisocial, or toxic? In those instances, surely leaders would benefit from at least entertaining the possibility that better values can be adopted and espoused in favor of the majority. Values are generally stable over time, but we do have the capacity to change, and that includes changing our views and beliefs around core values (if you want to know yours, take this very short, free assessment). This is especially important when values are maladaptive, or plainly wrong. As I illustrate in my latest book, the most the brutal dictators in history happen to have very few reservations about following their own crooked values—in fact they were transparent and uncompromisingly true to them, but to everybody’s detriment. A leader who insists on being true to their values, even when those values harm others, is doing nobody a favor. From an other-perspective, such leaders would be better off questioning, changing or ignoring their own values, so as to behave according to the prosocial values of the majority.

(4) Basic decency and integrity suffice: After that, values are a nice add-on, but what matters is leaders’ actual competence and ability to lead. The real test is not whether leaders have the “right” values but whether they behave with integrity, fairness, and restraint when it counts. Competence, empathy, and impulse control routinely outperform any abstract commitment to one’s internal belief system, no matter how logical or psychologically appealing that system may be to some (which tends to mean it will be unappealing to others). People don’t follow you because they agree with every value you supposedly hold; they follow you because you make good decisions that benefit more than just yourself, and because you have the skills, personality, and ability to make them better.

Adapt, rethink, and revise

In short, when leaders are decent human beings, with the ability to control their dark side and resist short-term temptations to benefit individually but at the expense of the collective, what matters is not so much what they think or how they feel about polarizing issues, but their ability to persuade a group of people to set aside their individual agendas to become part of a unity, a strong collective that can function and perform. This also means convincing people to set aside their own differences in values, at least when they are at work or attempting to collaborate, so the group can get on with the task of actually achieving something rather than endlessly litigating their personal worldviews.

What followers need is not leaders who perform their values but leaders who regulate themselves in service of the group. Teams, organizations, and indeed nations will generally benefit from leaders who can adapt, rethink, and revise—ƒnot because they lack conviction, but because they have the humility to prioritize collective progress over personal purity.