Selfishness vs Altruism
Review and analyze Avolio and Locke (2002) article and consider the question: “Should leaders be selfish or altruistic?”
Make a case for one side or a case for an alternate position of your perspective (Mays, 2018, para. 1).
I personally had a hard time following Avolio and Locke’s debate throughout the article mostly because of the disagreement I had over Locke’s definition of “altruism” which formed as the basis of his and Avolio’s debate.
Locke (2002) defined altruism simply as “the sacrifice of oneself to others (Avolio & Locke, 2002, p. 170, para. 3).” He also quotes Binswanger’s (1986) definition of altruism as “the basic principle… that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that sacrifice to others is the only justification of his existence, and that sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, or value (as cited in Avolio & Locke, 2002, p. 170, para 3).” Locke also goes on to elaborate, from what I perceive as an incorrect view, his point of altruism being unappealing to both the altruistic person and his followers by stating:
If a leader wanted to be truly altruistic, he or she should pick a role (job career) he does not want or value, make a product he or she has no personal interest in, expect no rewards for his or her achievements, and devote himself or herself to serving the wants of his or her customers and employees without any hope of pleasure or gain. Would anyone want to be a leader under such circumstances? I cannot imagine why. (Avolio & Locke, 2002, p. 170, para. 4)
The definition I found to be more accurate of altruism is “the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (“Altruism,” n.d).” The word (or lack thereof) that makes all the difference to me between my understanding of altruism and Locke’s understanding is “welfare” which is missing from Locke’s definition. Locke’s version of altruism simply means self-sacrifice of an individual’s self-interest to a group’s collective interest which is the main difference because he doesn’t take into account whether the group’s interest benefits society, or the welfare of society (Avolio & Locke, 2002, p. 170, para 3).
According to him, this is how the actions of Jesus’ self sacrifice can be compared to the actions of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia asking their people to sacrifice themselves as well for the good of the state (Avolio & Locke, 2002, p. 171, para 4). His comparison of the two are inaccurate because Germany and Russia’s actions as a state caused immeasurable pain and suffering to thousands of people and only benefited the state at the expense of their enemies. In relation to Jesus who sacrificed himself for the indisputable welfare of everyone and was thus truly altruistic in his actions because everyone benefited from it.
Locke sees society as a collection of individuals, each only acting in their own self interests and that by others allowing altruism to take place is selfish in itself meaning that it’s impossible to have an altruistic society (Avolio & Locke, 2002, p. 171, para. 3-5). While it’s true that many of us do act in self-interest, I argue that it doesn’t mean we as a society can’t become altruistic in nature if people act with self-interest. Humans are social creatures and a big reason for our success in surviving throughout time lie in our ability to work together as a collective group and put the needs of the group above our own. This is why for example, we see mothers and fathers living in poverty sacrifice the majority of their resources in order to provide better futures for their children and allow them to contribute to society. Or civil servants such as firefighters risking their lives to ensure citizens are safely evacuated outside a burning building. If we, as people, only acted in our own self-interests then no amount of money or incentive would be large enough to risk our own individual survival for someone else’s. It is because we as people care for the welfare of others and that these actions may lead to an event that benefits society in the future. For example, the kids with the poverty-stricken mother and father, it could turn out that they may find the cure for cancer in the future and thus benefit millions more people from the sacrifice of their parents. Or in the case of the firefighters, maybe one of those citizens leads an effort to research strategies which significantly reduce the chances of buildings catching fires quickly.
Altruism is necessary for the advancement of society because if more people display altruistic behaviour and reach mutually beneficial outcomes with their neighbors, then it’s highly probable that they will mirror that behaviour and mutually benefit more from others. Life doesn’t have to be a zero sum game with winners and losers because eventually a majority of the world’s resources will end up in the hands of a few. The reason the concept of altruism even exists is to identify those who behave in this manner from the many who act out of selfishness. If everyone could act with the intent to benefit those around them, then the concept of altruism need not exist.
References
Altruism. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/altruism?s=t
Avolio, B. & Locke, E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus egoism. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 169-191. Retrieved from https://learn.twu.ca/pluginfile.php/155560/mod_resource/content/1/5.%20Avolio.Locke%202002.pdf
Mays, A. (2018). DQ 5.2: Selfishness vs. Altruism. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://learn.twu.ca/mod/forum/view.php?id=105598
Welfare. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved October 23, 2018