What matters most in leadership? The question has invigorated thinkers from the origins of philosophy—think Plato’s philosopher-kings, Xenophon’s Cyrus, or Mengzi’s enlightened rulers—to today’s most influential scholars of leadership (and pretty much everyone in between). Since the 1970’s, an influential movement in leadership and management theory, drawing on the groundbreaking work of psychologists David McClelland and Richard Boyatzis, has emphasized the critical role of competence in clarifying what makes for good, effective leadership. Relevant skills and tasks can be organized according to job- and role-specific competencies for managing and leading groups of individuals toward desired ends; emotional intelligence has emerged as a popular candidate for categorizing core leadership competencies.
Almost concurrent with this rise in emphasis on competence in leadership, however, has been renewed focus and emphasis on the moral and ethical dimensions of leadership. James MacGregor Burns, held by many to be the founder of contemporary Leadership Studies, argued in 1978 in a seminal text that truly transformational leadership “occurs when [leaders and followers] raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation” (Burns 1978, p. 20). There must be a way for scholars of leadership, Burns thought, to distinguish between mere “naked power-wielders”—such as Adolf Hitler or other tyrannical despots and dictators—and the sort of bidirectional, mutually stimulating, and morally elevating leadership seen, for instance, in Mohandas K. Gandhi of the Indian Independence Movement or Martin Luther King, Jr., and the plethora of leaders and activists of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. He also thought mere “give-and-take” leadership, which he called “transactional”, did not describe the heights of possibility of a truly transforming leadership. Indeed, Burns’s “transforming/transactional” leadership paradigm, where Burns distinguished between these two basic and pervasive styles of leadership, one rooted in intrinsic motivation and shared ethical values and the other in a system of exchange of valued things, has been called the central advance of contemporary Leadership Studies.
Since Burns, a new generation of leadership scholars, virtue ethicists, business ethicists, and historians of leadership have aimed to clarify the ethical foundations of good leadership. Joanne Ciulla, held to be among the founders of modern business ethics, has argued that when we talk about good leadership we often talk about either ethical or effective leadership; the goal for identifying a truly good leadership, she says, is leadership which is both ethical and effective.
In a new book, I argue that Cicero, an ancient Roman philosopher and statesperson, advances a proto-transformational leadership theory that anticipates these modern developments. Cicero is famous for his exemplary prose style, success as an orator and politician, and for his championing the republican cause during Julius Caesar’s authoritarian rise to power in the 50’s and 40’s BCE. In Cicero’s On the Republic (modeled on Plato’s Republic and written in the 50’s BCE), Cicero hopes for leaders (rectores) who will lead with virtuous integrity in what they do and say. They will be committed to lifelong learning and aim to become models of the Cardinal Virtues. They will use oratory for the truth, not just to win an argument. Most important, Cicero thinks, these leaders ought to aim always at a flourishing life for their fellow citizens (beata civium vita). Through their example, he thinks, such leaders can become “mirrors for their fellow-citizens” (speculum civibus).
Later, in the On Duties (written in 44 BCE shortly before Cicero’s assassination), one of the most influential books of both antiquity and the Renaissance, Cicero takes up the Stoic question regarding the apparent conflict between the morally good (what he calls honestum) and the expedient (utile). Cicero takes pains in the On Duties to show that what appears expedient—but which is in fact morally wrong—is not actually expedient. In other words, much of what leaders do in aiming to justify vicious acts is fundamentally mistaken (a)moral reasoning. In doing this, Cicero thinks (along with Ciulla), that these leaders have missed the point of good leadership—to be both ethical (honestum) and effective (utile). Cicero criticizes even Romulus, legendary founder of Rome, on this account: Romulus thought the political benefit of becoming the sole ruler of the village of Rome justified his killing of his own brother. Cicero disagrees, saying that even “divine” Romulus deserves censure for this murderous act.
Cicero’s ideal for leadership is transformational in its focus on ethics and the elevating possibilities for leadership. Cicero’s ideal leaders can bring about enhanced virtues in their followers and uplift the commonwealth. Cicero’s abiding concern for the salus rei publicae (health/flourishing of the republic) maps on well with contemporary ideals in leadership for flourishing.
I call Cicero’s ideal proto-transformational, however, in that many of Cicero’s idealized leadership portraits show clear ancient biases. We should not forget, I contend, that Cicero lived (and partook actively) in a slave society that systematically oppressed enslaved people, women, and people without citizenship.
Cicero’s ideal for principled, ethical, character-centered leadership, isn’t just relegated to theory, however. It connects with a contemporary resurgence in Leadership Studies scholars interested in flourishing, ethics, and character in leadership. This research has suggested that “character leadership” is not “nice-to-have” but essential to good leadership and, to be sure, highly effective. Research centers such as the Program for Leadership and Character at Wake Forest University, the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute at the Ivey Business School, the Oxford Character Project, and the Leadership for Flourishing community of practice at the Harvard Human Flourishing Program are highlighting the critical importance of virtuous character in leadership. Seven evidence-based strategies for character and leadership development have emerged from this research, much of it mirroring the sort of character development recommended by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. Indeed, researchers at the Center for Education in Virtues and Values at the Francisco de Vitoria University have developed a model which combines virtues and competencies in a single consistent model of leadership excellence, where virtues represent the “meta-competencies” of specific leadership competencies—the compasses by which these lower-order leadership competencies are directed toward courageous, just, moderate, and wise ends.
In sum, there is a growing recognition that virtuous character matters for good leadership—it may even be the keystone for the sort of leadership we want to see in the world. Plato’s Socrates famously says in Republic 5 that until philosophers are kings or kings are philosophers the city will have no rest from its challenges. Cicero and this new movement of researchers don’t go that far. But it may be that if we replace “philosophers” with “individuals of virtuous character” (which does require robust ethical reflection of the sort Socrates advocated) and “kings” with “leaders,” we are closing in on the foundations of good leadership. A leadership that is truly both ethical and effective, and in service of the common good and the flourishing of all.
Evan Dutmer
Evan Dutmer is Senior Instructor in Ethics and Curriculum Leader for the Department of Leadership Education at Culver Academies, where he also holds a J.D. Williamson '63 Fellowship. His research interests lie in ancient philosophy, virtue ethics, character education, and leadership studies. He received his PhD in Ancient Philosophy from Northwestern University in 2019. He is the author of Cicero's New Leadership: A Proto-Transformational Leadership Theory (Edward Elgar, 2026). He has written over twenty articles and chapters in academic journals and volumes.
